egafd.com

Just had a thought about the possible banning of so-called 'extreme porn' by the Reverend Blair and his god-bothering clan. At present material that is included in a video submitted to the BBFC may not pass muster and have to be removed. As it is not illegal at present to possess such material, only supply it, all one has to do to get a certificate is agree to remove it. In future as it would be illegal to possess it in the first place, would a producer be in breach of the law whilst merely trying to get a cert whether they made cuts or not? This means censoship before the fact, and will result in producers having to do the censors ( I refuse to call them classifiers) job for them in case what they submitted got their collars felt.

I wonder how they will define "extreme porn" will it be illegal to own a Pier Paolo Pasolini film or a Robert Mapplethorp photograph? Or will the fine art
people get away with it?

There is a danger that 'art' will no longer be a defence. Technically the books by David Hamilton the soft focus young girls photographer from the 70s are now illegal here, though that is an age thing not 'extreme porn'. It will not suprise me if indeed they do charge galleries and publishers for material by Mapplethorp et al. You can bet however they define their terms, and at present they haven't a clue, ( a bit of 'I know it when I see it, but I cant tell you what it is)it will be a complete mess, with a field day for lawyers.

Yes.
Mike Freeman.

Andy,
Art is a defence under the Obscene Publications Act (OPA)which offers such a defence. This defence can only be made in support of an unclassified film. Such a film to be proven to be obscene would be required to be charged under the OPA and likely to be acquitted by contemporary juries most of whom will have watched porn films for entertainment.
The Video Recordings Act 1984 was introduced by the state to underpin ,a failing to censor, Obscene Publications Act.

But as long as you remain unclassified you will only be able to be prosecuted under the OPA. If you address the jury yourself and ask them to look at the film in the jury room and decide if it is fit for adults then they will always acquit you. To become rich and beat the system all you need is balls...

Mike Freeman.

How ironic that the OPA is what everyone will be looking toward "when" the Violent Porn Bill is passed.

The state wish to avoid giving you a trial by judge and jury under the OPA. The problem is getting one and not being charged under the Video Recordings Act.
Mike

So how will they define what "art" is? lol ! Anyone remember those photos Saatchi exhibited a few years back? or how about a mucky pair of Emin's knickers, art counts for anything these days so long as an "important" curator or "important" person in the art world says its art, again it brings us back to class ridden UK