heard about new Porn Law?

[Jacques]

Unnessessarily Paranoid?

Let's have a look. The government wants to define these images to be illegal if they are pornographic. The legal definition of pornographic is from the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

51 Sections 48 to 50: interpretation

(1) For the purposes of sections 48 to 50, a person is involved in pornography if an indecent image of that person is recorded; and similar expressions, and "pornography", are to be interpreted accordingly.

The Law defines pornographic images to be images which are "indecent". The OPA criminalises images if it is "obscene", that is a huge difference and what the Government is trying to do is to use the the test of "indecent" as opposed to the test of "obscene".

However you are in luck, there is a defence that you can use. If the BBFC say it is OK then it can't be a criminal offence. Great this Law means nothing to me as long as I am not looking at rape, bestiality etc. right? Well no, think about why would you should need this defence because in real terms it should not be necessary? You would only need this defence if material passed by the BBFC (and this cannot be obscene as defined by the OPA) could be found to be illegal under this law.

Still with me?

Right, so in real terms what all this means is that the DVD you bought from Europe which is identical to the R18 version in every respect except price, would now be illegal as the BBFC have not certified it. Thus the government controls...sorry... restricts pornography access.

[Snake Diamond]

Sam Slater wrote:

...

> So if hooligans fought naked, with pvc masks on, they could say
> it's sexual foreplay and walk free? !laugh!


Ummm, is this some new sexual kink in BDSM that not many people have heard of ?

!laugh!

[planeterotica]

DavidS wrote:

> Graham, before I read your bit about a fair trial I was about
> to make the same point. I have to say I was surprised that the
> BBC1 6 o'clock news made such a thing of how the mother of the
> victim had had such an alleged influence on the decision to go
> ahead with this legislation. In the circumstances, it could be
> classed as contempt of court. And why, oh why, do middle class
> people, who often have no knowledge of the subject they bang on
> about, carry so much weight with the media in this country.

planeterotica wrote

DavidS, i must point out that this man has been tried and found guilty but if at his appeal it was found to be a mistrial then where will it leave this legislation as they seem to be making this case the main focus of their reason for bringing in this legislation, what i am saying is they are trying to rush through a badly thought out piece of legislation on the back of one isolated case which hasnt as yet had its full Judicial hearing and now after this publicity of this case how can anyone be sure that this man will now get a fair hearing at his appeal.

[Jacques]

The BBC is now backtracking on it's reporting from yesterday.

[planeterotica]

Jacques wrote:

> The BBC is now backtracking on it's reporting from yesterday.
>
>

planeterotica wrote.

Maybe they have been reading the comments on these forums i still think they should have let this mans appeal been heard before they cited his case as an example as to why this legislation be made law as the Judicial system in this case has yet to run its full course.

[Jacques]

If you read the appeal transcription it categorically states that Jane Longhusrts death was not caused because of images on the internet, so the BBC should not be citing Coutts as an example of why this law needs to be introduced.

[planeterotica]

Jacques wrote:

> If you read the appeal transcription it categorically states
> that Jane Longhusrts death was not caused because of images on
> the internet, so the BBC should not be citing Coutts as an
> example of why this law needs to be introduced.

planeterotica wrote.

Nice one Jacques, and maybe this is why the BBC are back pedalling now just in case they are seen to be interfeering with the course of Justice, we all know that any fetish is probably implanted in the brain at birth but the Internet always get demonized just as Television did several years ago its an easy way to explain violent or wierd behavior, but remember there was no TV or Internet to blame when Hitler came to power and just look at the deaths and violence he was responsible for, i suppose he read to many books!sad!

[eroticartist]

Censorship creates a black market, crime and corruption. The wide boys rub their dirty hands with glee because this new law that bans SM will earn them plenty of money. They are not film-makers or producers but pirates and crooks. Parasitic on all the creative people in the adult entertainment business.

Corruption is rife with Soho selling all the latest SM titles from the States. There should be no censorship for consenting adults. The more realistic the scene the more likely it is to attract the the Censor. Therefore the ability of a performer to act results in censorship. The proposed act contravenes Article 10 ECHR. The right to freedom of expression.

SM is a sophisticated sexual practise that has amused and given much pleasure to humans for thousands of years of culture. The authoritarian secular or religious state has always discouraged pornography. The history of art is full of imprisoned and persucuted makers of pornographic imagery.

Most art is bad and has no artistic merit but that is no reason to ban it. The opposite is true. Only creative filmmakers can engage their audience using the art of filmmaking. Bad filmmaking has no effect on the minds of the public at all because only the creative can engage the sexual emotions of the viewer.

All the major studies on pornography have recommended legalisation for adults.

Mike Freeman.

[Jacques]

Why isn't Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy banned?

You see prolific Serial Killer Joel Rifkin (Joel the Ripper) was inspired to strangle victims after watching it and it's not even dangerous violent porn.....