Can anyone clarify UK porn laws?

[fransgen11]

I am unsure whether this law covers pornographic videos depicting BDSM. Example would a video of an adult spanking another constenting adult's bottom be illegal? What if a whip was being used to spank? What if the spanking continued until the skin broke and blood appeared? The bum cheeks surely wouldn't be considered the same as the anus in the law would they?

The issue I have with the "grossly offensive, disgusting" line is that that isn't a concrete fact and more down to individual's opinion. Some people find all porn offensive and disgusting., while some people aren't offended by hard porn like golden showers etc. Then there are lots of margins inbetween.


"Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

It refers to pornography, defined as an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", and portrays any of the following:

* (a) an act which threatens a person?s life,
* (b) an act which results, or is 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 (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

The term covers staged acts, and applies whether or not the participants consent"

[one eyed jack]

Sounds like your in the all clear by the criminal justice and immigration bill.

Thrash away!

[jj]

OTOH the Act is [deliberately, I suspect] extremely poorly-defined.
"... it must reasonably be assumed....";
".... which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character....;
"... an act which threatens a person?s life...";
".... an act which.... is likely to result, in serious injury....";
"... which..... appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse...";
"....appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal...."
are all at the whim of the individual observer and the prevailing Zeitgeist.
All of the above have at times been used to persecute [and prosecute] otherwise
law-abiding citizens, in my view usually grossly unfairly.
Any law which is framed with reference to such terms as 'reasonably', 'assumed',
'obscene' and 'disgusting' should be consigned to the dustbin of history, along
with 'right-thinking', 'God-fearing' and 'man on the Clapham omnibus'.

A saner and less repressed society than ours would mind its own damn' business
in matters of sexual taste.

[Diggler69]

Just look at the UK history of defining porn and obscenity

"Before 1959 obscenity had been a common-law offence, as defined by the lord chief justice in 1868, extending to all works judged to ?deprave and corrupt? those open to ?such immoral influences?

So how would you define that? and also what may have been considered depraved and corrupting in 1890, 1910, and1935 could have been considered ok in 1947

It's all B******s

[fransgen11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_porn

"... an act which threatens a person?s life...";

So what about porn where a woman sits on a man's face? Is that life threatening since he could suffocate? What about "smoking" porn where the focus is a naked woman smoking a cigarette? One could argue that was life threatening.

I fully agree with points (c) and (d) since IMO necrophillia and beasality are wrong and unnatural. But (a) and (b) are ambiguous and some material that is criminalized may very well be victimless crimes eg simply BDSM play between consensual adults.

[thealtruist]

Let's not forget the "Operation Spanner" debacle.

[fransgen11]

btw the reason the UK introduced this new law was because some guy killed his girlfriend and it turned out he was a big fan of extreme porn.

But I don't see how this law will save any lives, it's not enforceable (the porn is still out there just as easy to access) and if someone doesn't care about the consequences of killing it's unlikely they won't care if extreme porn is legal or not.

[jj]

It's all B******s

A masterly summation.
Unfortunately, for a citizen in a supposedly free and enlightened society, it's
dangerous B******s. Possibly worse: it's futile and childish.

[jj]

"some guy killed his girlfriend and it turned out he was a big fan of extreme porn"

A typical juridical non sequitur. He may also have been an Everton fan and a keen
Morris-dancer. But I wouldn't necessarily criminalize either activity wthout proof of
a stronger causal link.
Then again, I might : -))