seenoevil.org.uk

[phantom]

ok, here are the relevant links...
the bill:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/index_130.htm
from which three links go to the definitions:
Possession of extreme pornographic images:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-f.htm#index_link_104

above are the definitions of the offence
- the context of an image is to be considered!
- pictures taken from mainstream movies, etc can be deemed 'extreme porn' if done so purely for pornographic purposes.
- acts which threaten or appear to threaten a person's life; this could include depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon
- acts which result in, or appear to result (or be likely to result) in, serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals; this could include the insertion of sharp objects or the mutilation of breasts or genitals
- acts which involve or appear to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
- acts which show a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal
- In all cases the act and the participants depicted in the image must appear to be real to the viewer
- BBFC classified material exempt, unless single picture/scenes extracted solely for sexual arousal

note: suffocation (i.e. coutts), but coudl this mean choking on a male member?
note: threat of a weapon, this includes so-called 'knife-play'
note: rape imagery per se is not banned (?)
note: piercing imagery could be included (insertion of sharp objects)

permitted defences are:

- that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image; this will cover those who can demonstrate that their legitimate business means that they have a reason for possessing the image;
- that the person had not seen the image and therefore did not know, nor had cause to suspect, that the images held were extreme pornographic images; this will cover those who unwittingly stumble across such images;
- that the person had not asked for the image - it having been sent without request - and that, once he was aware that he had possession of the image, he had not kept it for an unreasonable period of time; this will cover those who are sent unsolicited material for example as an unsolicited email message, and once they are aware of it, act quickly to delete it
Penalties etc. for possession of extreme pornographic images:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-f.htm#index_link_107

- serious violence up to three years
- necrophilia and bestiality up to two years
- first offence up to six months, this will rise to 12 months on the commencement of section 154(1) of the 2003 Act, the maximum sentence on summary conviction in England and Wales (I don't know what that means)
- for sentence over 24 months automatic inclusion on sex offenders register

Interesting how 'serious violence' is now deemed more severe than necrophilia and bestiality. This clearly is a new development.

Extreme pornographic images:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206

key paragraphs:

[prang]

It's even worse than I had expected, and I'm a pessimist.

The scope is so wide - it's pretty much a licence to haul anyone in on suspicion of "possessing dangerous pictures".

Even if they find nothing, those who get caught in the net will inevitably be labelled as "suspected sex offenders" - probably get their DNA on the database forever etc.
It really is a thought crime law. Am I right in thinking that someone could take a sequence from a fully certified film, and by the very fact that it has been removed from it's certified context, the person who took the clip would now suddenly be a criminal - a sex offender?

Much of the BDSM community seems to have been quite ambivalent to this new legislation. I wonder what they'll think now.

So, although I have never committed any act of violence, or possessed any material depicting real violence or death or harm, I am about to become a suspected sex offender.

I am gonna make damned sure that I comply with this law. Those (play-acting) images that I do possess will be deleted beyond recovery. I don't like the idea of being a criminal, but the law will suddenly make me one if I don't do something about it.

Might be a good idea for a whole bunch of people to make a close examination of any images they possess - the scope of this bill is so wide that almost anyone could be nailed as a sex offender if the authorities are prepared to press matters.

I wonder where they will start. Since we have opposed this legislation, it might be reasonable to assume we will all suddenly become suspects.

So, thought crime and thought police. I will comply with the law, but I'm nevertheless expecting a knock on the door at 5:00am one morning.

It's Orwellian. I know that term gets over-used, but this really is Orwellian. Thought-crime... Sex-crime... straight out of 1984. I try to tell myself I am being hysterical about this, but I can't convince myself that I am.

This really is as awful as it appears to be, isn't it?

[phantom]

Prang,

[sparrowatnight]

So while it will generally be legal to watch a film like 'Hostel' and 'Captivity', if a person were to pause the DVD at a certain violent scene and print that image for 'sexual purposes', they would have committed an offense under the legislation.

How is that different from pausing the DVD on the screen and masturbating over it?







_________________________________________________________________
Try Live.com - your fast, personalised homepage with all the things you care about in one place.
http://www.live.com/?mkt=en-gb =

[sparrowatnight]

[emark]

[emark]

I wrote out a summary at http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/emark/150874/ in case anyone is interested, feel free to reuse/post etc.

[phantom]

well, I think with context it is mainly ment that the law cannot choose to pick one picture set within a series and do you for that...
it means to protect you from what I woudl call a 'deceiptful' prosecution where the context is really known by the cps, but not shown in court, thereby creating an incorrect impression...
so it's really about a relation of a single image to a total work...

I don't think we should necessarily read too much into this regarding the context of where picture came from, etc...
I would say it relates purely to the relationship between sets of images...

[rosalee]

[emark]

I've updated a couple of pages on the Wiki, in an attempt to summarise the bill:

http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/The_Home_Office_proposals
http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Human_Rights