Latest response on SM and the law
SnowdropExplodes, 21 Dec 2005 17:55:55
I am adding as a Word file the text of the letter I received today forwarded by my MP, in response to my letters arguing for the decriminalisation of sadomasochism.
Note particularly as being of relevance to the Backlash campaign, the distinctive features of the Spanner case, where Ms Mactaggart MP says that the videoing implied that the acts were not intended to be merely private.
I would welcome suggestions as to how to respoond to Ms Mactaggart MP's letter; I have a rough idea of what I will say, but as long as it shows good research and cogent arguments, the more the better!
(I am posting it on the web boards and weblogs on IC as well)
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul C. Dickie, 22 Dec 2005 12:53:34
In message <20051221175221.10980.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
OJT- wrote:
> I am adding as a Word file the text of the letter I received today forwarded by
>my MP, in response to my letters arguing for the decriminalisation of
>sadomasochism.
>
> Note particularly as being of relevance to the Backlash campaign, the
>distinctive features of the Spanner case, where Ms Mactaggart MP says that the
>videoing implied that the acts were not intended to be merely private.
That is utter poppycock; as anyone at all familiar with that disgraceful
case knows, the videos were meant to be sent to other members of the
group (or private members' club) who, for one reason or another, had not
attended the event. Thus, the videos were meant to be of limited
circulation and, had they ever been offered for sale to the public, they
would surely have contravened Graham Bright's Video Recordings Act.
--
< Paul >
Thunder, 22 Dec 2005 15:55:01
In message , Paul C. Dickie
writes
>In message <20051221175221.10980.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
>OJT- wrote:
>> I am adding as a Word file the text of the letter I received today
>>forwarded by
>>my MP, in response to my letters arguing for the decriminalisation of
>>sadomasochism.
>>
>> Note particularly as being of relevance to the Backlash campaign, the
>>distinctive features of the Spanner case, where Ms Mactaggart MP says that the
>>videoing implied that the acts were not intended to be merely private.
>
>That is utter poppycock; as anyone at all familiar with that disgraceful
>case knows, the videos were meant to be sent to other members of the
>group (or private members' club) who, for one reason or another, had not
>attended the event. Thus, the videos were meant to be of limited
>circulation and, had they ever been offered for sale to the public, they
>would surely have contravened Graham Bright's Video Recordings Act.
But dangerous grounds to argue bearing in mind we are talking of photos
NOT for private viewing but generally available on the Internet!
--
^Thunder^
SnowdropExplodes, 22 Dec 2005 16:24:51
^Thunder^ wrote: In message , Paul C. Dickie
writes
>In message <20051221175221.10980.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
>OJT- wrote:
>> I am adding as a Word file the text of the letter I received today
>>forwarded by
>>my MP, in response to my letters arguing for the decriminalisation of
>>sadomasochism.
>>
>> Note particularly as being of relevance to the Backlash campaign, the
>>distinctive features of the Spanner case, where Ms Mactaggart MP says that the
>>videoing implied that the acts were not intended to be merely private.
>
>That is utter poppycock; as anyone at all familiar with that disgraceful
>case knows, the videos were meant to be sent to other members of the
>group (or private members' club) who, for one reason or another, had not
>attended the event. Thus, the videos were meant to be of limited
>circulation and, had they ever been offered for sale to the public, they
>would surely have contravened Graham Bright's Video Recordings Act.
But dangerous grounds to argue bearing in mind we are talking of photos
NOT for private viewing but generally available on the Internet!
Well, given that the proposed legislation would include all photos, it is a clear example of their thinking: privately taken photos would be regarded as being just as evil and dangerous as those downloaded from the internet, because "they indicate that the acts are not intended to be merely private."
In other words, it is an explicit statement that such private photographs would be expected to be prosecuted in the same way that photographs obtained from others would be.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Graham Marsden, 22 Dec 2005 17:54:06
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>Note particularly as being of relevance to the Backlash campaign, the
>>distinctive features of the Spanner case, where Ms Mactaggart MP says that the
>>videoing implied that the acts were not intended to be merely private.
>
> That is utter poppycock; as anyone at all familiar with that disgraceful
> case knows, the videos were meant to be sent to other members of the
> group (or private members' club) who, for one reason or another, had not
> attended the event. Thus, the videos were meant to be of limited
> circulation and, had they ever been offered for sale to the public, they
> would surely have contravened Graham Bright's Video Recordings Act.
The problem is that AIUI the proposals cover *all* images, videos etc.
On the Channel 4 programme "Death by Sex" a couple of weeks ago about
erotic asphyxia, there was an American couple who, to cover themselves
(or, at least, him) in case something went tragically wrong and she
died, would videotape each session they did with her saying that she was
doing it voluntarily and knew the risks, hopefully meaning that he
wouldn't then be convicted of murder.
But under these proposals, even though what they're doing is not
illegal, were a couple to do that in this country, they could be jailed
for possessing the video tapes!
Cheers,
Graham.
zak, 22 Dec 2005 20:20:14
Original Message:
-----------------
^Thunder^ kinkfest@ukessex.org.uk, 22 Dec 2005 20:20:14
In message , Paul C. Dickie
writes
>In message <20051221175221.10980.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
>OJT- wrote:
>> I am adding as a Word file the text of the letter I received today
>>forwarded by
>>my MP, in response to my letters arguing for the decriminalisation of
>>sadomasochism.
>>
>> Note particularly as being of relevance to the Backlash campaign, the
>>distinctive features of the Spanner case, where Ms Mactaggart MP says
that the
>>videoing implied that the acts were not intended to be merely private.
>
>That is utter poppycock; as anyone at all familiar with that disgraceful
>case knows, the videos were meant to be sent to other members of the
>group (or private members' club) who, for one reason or another, had not
>attended the event. Thus, the videos were meant to be of limited
>circulation and, had they ever been offered for sale to the public, they
>would surely have contravened Graham Bright's Video Recordings Act.
But dangerous grounds to argue bearing in mind we are talking of photos
NOT for private viewing but generally available on the Internet!
--
^Thunder^
Not really: the McTaggart moron is talking irrelevancies. It wasn't the
'privacy' of what
the Spanner men did that was bothering anyone at the time, and because
there were more
than two of them involved they would have had trouble using privacy as a
defence.
Having said that, I think courts distinguish between 'publication' in the
sense of showing
your mate your naughty digital pix and 'publication for gain' where you're
actually
selling pictures.
z
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .