egafd.com

Magoo wrote:

Imagine if shagging dead people carried the death penalty.

I chortled at the irony of this.

Macho Man wrote:

I'm sure a few movie scripts could give terrorists a few ideas.

Yeah ever since I saw Die Hard in the late 80's or was it 1990? I wondered when terrorists were going to follow suit with this idea..well you know the rest. hel they didnt ban Die Hard though did they? Why? Well it had no shagging in it did it. Yhough some might see The Nakatomi Plaza on fire at the top as a metaphor for something sexual but this freudian subtlety would have been over looked because the audience that watches it wouldnt be considered that smart.

Magoo again:

Which makes me wonder about that scene in Goodfellas where, during an armed robbery, a female victim gets off on being raped by a mafia geezer in front of her husband.

Er..I've seen Goodfellas lots of times. have you got some special edition I havent got as I dont remember any rape bar the nerdy bloke getting a bit too frisky with Miss Bracco in the car to which he got remonstrated quite severely for by the peeved Mr Liotta (in other words had several shades of shit bashed out of his bonce for copping a feel).

Marino wrote:

So my latest film of my dogs shitting in my mums mouth is not going to be allowed then?

Damm that was a waste of good film stock.

No not at all Marino. The way to do it is down grade yourself as a producer and put the names of 2 french chicks in and angle it as made from the perspective of these 2 women and give it a fancy french title like:

Mi Maitre Mange Chien Merde or some such (loose translation: My Mother Eats Dog Shit)
une film de Patrice le Derriere and some other french sounding bird. It'll come across as all female empowerment like but you'll still get to see dog shit eating on the big screen in St Martins lane and I'll bet you the queues will be right round the block for that one as people watch the shit eating intently as some profound moving part of the movie.

Ultimately its still about a woman eating dog shit though.

Is that from the "high on reefer edition". I have not got that version.

You must mean another film surely or I might have to watch Good Fellas and pay more attention this time.

Think I know the scene your talking about M

Masked bandits bail some office up and head guy does some bird over the desk(who knows him) to make it look like it wasn't an inside job

No idea of the films name but

Im pretty sure it isnt Mags

This is what the Bill actually says: clear enough...(sub-para 6 of Clause 64 defines 'extreme').
64
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?

35

(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.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Part 6 ? Criminal law


45




(4)
Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the


image appears to have been so produced is to be determined by reference to?


(a)
the image itself, and


(b)
(if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for


the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

5

(5)
So, for example, where?


(a)
an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of


images, and


(b)
it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely


or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,

10


the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be


pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if


taken by itself.


(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,

15

(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

20

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

25

(b)
data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an


image within paragraph (a).


(8)
In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part


surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).


(9)
Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted?

30

(a)
in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of


Public Prosecutions; or


(b)
in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of


Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

This law is typical Nu-Labour fascism as per usual.

Adding the qualifier that something (the animal, corpse, life-threatening act, etc.) 'appears' to be real opens up a whole can of worms. What about magicians that saw women in half as part of their stage show?

There's an entire 'Erotic Death' audience out there, who like to share clips of characters getting killed in mainstream films. Possession of said clips (Extracts of certified works) will make them fall foul of said bill.

Also, if pornography is defined as something intended to cause sexual arousal, and this is such a great evil, how come Viagra is legally available in this country?