OTT - Burn your p0rn guys & gals

[zii]

"If you use the Internet for any purpose that might be construed as other than respectable – be afraid. Be very afraid."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_bill_extreme_pron/

I'm off to the video shop to take back my rentals...

[naimex]

oh well if its only the english...

if they come to denmark with that shit, theyll ruin our economy...

what will we live off, if not porn...

[Mr Kot]

Chill, folks.

They're not banning all porn, only the most extreme variety. Here's section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill as it stands at the moment:

62 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—

(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.
(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be
assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual
arousal.

(4) ...
(5) ...

(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic
way, 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 sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing 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.

(8) In this section “image” means—

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an
image within paragraph (a).



So, in other words, anyone who gets off on snuff movies, mutilation, corpses or animals deserve everything they get, tbh. Your average pics and videos of regular nookie won't land you in jail. This law is subject to change before it's actually passed, so watch this space.


/edit: proposed penalties at this stage are 12 months jail / £5000 fine in a magistrates court or 3 years / unlimited fine if it goes to crown court. (2 years if the pr0n doesn't involve threat to life or mutilation)

[nobby]

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus.

lol ^^

Nobby is so immature ! :p

[Obsidian X]

My snuff porn is so well hidden, it'd take a team of expert crackers to unearth it :p

In all seriousness though, images of that calibre wouldn't be found on my computer. I'm more concerned with how they're going to convict people though.

The police obtain some kind of flimsy pretext then obtain a warrant to search your harddrive? No thanks, big brother. Also, if this law does go through, morons are going to confuse "extreme" pornography with "child pornography", and it wouldn't suprise me if the police dealt with the two with the same amount of force.

Without going into dodgy territory, child pornography is heinous, and the police use many different techniques to stamp it out (dawn raids, entrapment etc). Is it really fair that this kind of treatment be used on (suspected) owners of pornography that the government don't deem suitable for consumption?

To reiterate, I don't sympathise with necrophiles, bestiophiles, zoophiles or snuff buffs. I'm merely saying they're not on the same level as paedophiles, but I can see them being dealt with in the same manner.

Also I really don't like this whole "nanny state" that seems to be shaping around us....

(sorry mods if that was a bit political) :angel:

[silent000]

There goes my lonely nights, fuck it i'll have to sit downstairs with my mum and play scrabble :(

[Sharper Blade]

am i allowed to have a pic of ressi blade dead on the ground of th? if not i'm so fucked =*(

[flib]

am i allowed to have a pic of ressi blade dead on the ground of th? if not i'm so fucked =*(
Pics or it didn't happen.

[Mr Kot]

am i allowed to have a pic of ressi blade dead on the ground of th? if not i'm so fucked =*(
Depends what you're doing to her at the time ;)

[zii]

If it could be considered to be arousing then it is illegal. However, who defines if is arousing or not? I might not find it arousing, but the police might, in which case you're nicked.

[Mr Kot]

If it could be considered to be arousing then it is illegal. However, who defines if is arousing or not? I might not find it arousing, but the police might, in which case you're nicked.


An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be
assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual
arousal.

The police should use their discretion as to whether the people who produced it intended it to be arousing to a sick few. Compare a video of sheep grazing naked in a field with one where said sheep is being "happy slapped" with some bloke's john thomas while giggling pissheads video it on a mobile phone.

Subsection (10) of the Bill, which I didn't include for reasons of brevity, provides that proceedings will only be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, not the police alone. There are other legal safeguards in place too.

If it does go as far as court, then 3 magistrates will decide whether the intention was to distribute for the arousal of some. It is immaterial whether the accused, the police officers, magistrate, jurors or judge are aroused by it.

Having said that, I think the question of what arouses a crown court judge is a matter for another thread :p

[zii]

One question about this bill: If the image depicted a simulated extreme sexual act (i.e it was not real; bear in mind that this law does not differenciate between real and simulated) then who does this law protect?

The actors where getting paid for it and were not hurt in the process and they were employed willingly.

This law protects nobody. So what is the point? ^^

[naimex]

One question about this bill: If the image depicted a simulated extreme sexual act (i.e it was not real; bear in mind that this law does not differenciate between real and simulated) then who does this law protect?

The actors where getting paid for it and were not hurt in the process and they were employed willingly.

This law protects nobody. So what is the point? ^^

to prevent little kids from knowing what sex is about before their retirement i assume....

(because i think they will soon follow with an update that says that all porn is banned yadda, yadda)

we had a loong debate about kids being exposed to pornographic images because of the places that erotic magazines were placed in stores...

as if there was an 8 year old today that didnt know how to do it.

[CMaster]

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s
anus, breasts or genitals

Could easily incllude a lot of BDSM porn. As the article states, the vauge definition of "extreme" means that we could have the rather silly situation where a variety of perfectly legal acts (stuff like consensual erotic asphixiation and domination are to my knowledge legal) that it is illegal to posses images of. Of course, we already have some of this with 'child' porn laws, but in that case at least a legitimate reason can be given.

[SizZLeR]

Further, "the Government's contention is that by viewing it [extreme porn] people are more likely to commit violent offences.

Gimme a break, cant they think of anything better to spend their time on? I mean whats next, i guess theyll come up and say that now teddy bears are banned for the same reason. :rolleyes:

As Naimex says, we had some discussions here in Denmark too, however even though our community see sex as a common and natural thing to happen between humans, we dont have nearly the same amount of problems related to it as some other countries has where its considered hardcore porn if a nipple shows on a girl. ROFL

Nipples are just sooooo sexy, and thats where little babies comes from......or maybe its not? O_o


Its sickening how governments in different countries from time to time, try to put the blame for violence on movies, porn, teddy bears (it will happen eventually :D ) and so forth.

And yet, the country that has most ppl killing each other afaik, are the same country with the most bans for erotic content etc., that really is a contradiction id say. ;)

[naimex]

Gimme a break, cant they think of anything better to spend their time on? I mean whats next, i guess theyll come up and say that now teddy bears are banned for the same reason. :rolleyes:

As Naimex says, we had some discussions here in Denmark too, however even though our community see sex as a common and natural thing to happen between humans, we dont have nearly the same amount of problems related to it as some other countries has where its considered hardcore porn if a nipple shows on a girl. ROFL

Nipples are just sooooo sexy, and thats where little babies comes from......or maybe its not? O_o


Its sickening how governments in different countries from time to time, try to put the blame for violence on movies, porn, teddy bears (it will happen eventually :D ) and so forth.

And yet, the country that has most ppl killing each other afaik, are the same country with the most bans for erotic content etc., that really is a contradiction id say. ;)

maybe its because other countries have to pay or go online to get porn, instead of that softcore crap where you dont see anything besides a girl making noises (she could be knitting a pair of socks under the camera for all you know), so they have nothing to masturbate to (unless they get turned on by knitting.... you never know).

And then all that tension builds up and then they see some poor defenseless person in the street and BAM, lots of tension, lots of stress, lots of all sorts of things and then you have an assault / murder / rape ... something nasty anyways.


Atleast that's what my peanut is telling me is the reason at the moment...

[HOG]

that stuff that is described as extreme is really wrong and in my opinion really has no place any where. Its different than other sexual acts because they involve illegal and mutilating acts. these acts should not be promoted =0. However i dont know if they need to go as far as prosicuting ppl who posses that stuff. Maybe just a fine or an effort to remove them from circulation or something. imo the people who make it and circulate it should be the ones getting in real trouble as they are the ones who are ACTUALLY commiting and promoting violent acts.

eewww nasteh

[SizZLeR]

Naimex i think youre on to something, cause its like my parents never forbid me to smoke, so i never started and still i dont feel the need to.

I think i was about 4 or 5 yrs old, in kindergarden i recall one of the teachers there telling one of the other boys, that after he had been peeing he had to wash his hands because he had touched his "little fellow".

The first thought that went thru my mind was "and youre sucking your husbands each night" - :p

And when i was 6 yrs old, my mom told my sister and me about the whole deal, well ofcourse in a non-vulgar way, but well we understood.

Later me and some friends from school found some porn magazines in my friends parents bedroom, vi saw images of oral sex and everything.

Within few yrs we found our way to our parents porn movies and watched them with amazement. :D


Then what have it done to me, for starters ive never raped no one, never felt like raping no one and also, ive never fought anyone, never felt like beating up anyone either. :angel:

All it has given me so far was pre-experience in sexual regard, so when i for the first time was with a girl, i knew what to expect and i did know a good amount of good positions. :D

So im a living example that porn doesnt necessarely make ppl violent or become rapists. ;)

Sometimes i get a good laugh when i see a US dollar bill and the quote "In god we trust" - The heck they do, but when it comes to nudity, they obviously have second thoughts about it. :lol:

Especially the "nipple"-thing, ive never come to realize how its erotic and are being censored out, i mean its the feeding valve for babies!!

Last summer when i was in Orlando Fl, i recall all the signs in shops saying "No shirt, no service", ok if youre in a classy place it looks somewhat akward to be halv way naked, but those signs were everywhere and again, didnt god create us like we are? and dont we trust in god? :D

[Mr Kot]

One question about this bill: If the image depicted a simulated extreme sexual act (i.e it was not real; bear in mind that this law does not differenciate between real and simulated) then who does this law protect?

The actors where getting paid for it and were not hurt in the process and they were employed willingly.

This law protects nobody. So what is the point? ^^If actors were not hurt in the process, then it is NOT "an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury " therefore no offence will be committed.

Also, in subsections (4) and (5) - which I didn't originally include - if the scene is taken in context with a wider range of images and those images when taken as a whole are not considered pornographic, then the law does not apply even if that image or clip by itself may be pornographic in nature.

In addition, Section 63 provides that this law shall not apply to "excluded images" which is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. In other words, a BBFC certified movie can contain scenes which replicate extreme porn (which we all know won't be real) and you can quite legally buy and own your DVD copy legally. No offence is committed here...

..BUT.. if you extract the scene and store it in such a way that "it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been
extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally
for the purpose of sexual arousal." [section 63(3)(b)] AND it is pornographic AND is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" AND it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, [any of the aforementioned acts] and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real, THEN you have committed an offence.

As you can see, so many criteria have to be satisfied before an offence is committed.

To answer the question, the law is designed to protect women (and presumably society in general) from abuse and murder by people such as Graham Coutts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Coutts) who killed a woman after subscribing to an "extreme porn" website. Even if the actors were employed willingly, some sicko who goes out of his way to extract and store stuff like this - whether alongside his collection of REAL snuff movies or not - is considered by the government to be a risk to society. The victim's mother and sister campaigned to criminalise such possession and were supported by their MP. The rest will soon be history...




Could easily incllude a lot of BDSM porn. As the article states, the vauge definition of "extreme" means that we could have the rather silly situation where a variety of perfectly legal acts (stuff like consensual erotic asphixiation and domination are to my knowledge legal) that it is illegal to posses images of.Again, if it is a classified work, there is no offence. If it's just BDSM porn, then a bit of candle wax on the nipples and a few clothes pegs on the scrotum are hardly going to cause "serious injury" [section 62(7)(b)]. BDSM porn crosses the boundary when it displays in a realistic way any form of mutilation, vivisection, excision, amputation etc.

[Eternal Pink]

damn it, where am i gonna get my S&M idea's from now :(

there goes mine and my girlfriends sex life :(

[zii]

n addition, Section 63 provides that this law shall not apply to "excluded images" which is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. In other words, a BBFC certified movie can contain scenes which replicate extreme porn (which we all know won't be real) and you can quite legally buy and own your DVD copy legally. No offence is committed here...

..BUT.. if you extract the scene and store it in such a way that "it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been
extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally
for the purpose of sexual arousal." [section 63(3)(b)] AND it is pornographic AND is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" AND it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, [any of the aforementioned acts] and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real, THEN you have committed an offence.


I disagree. If it is classified work and an image is extracted and on its own could be ""grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" AND it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way,"" then it could be classified as extreme pornography. The scene, if classified, was with actors so your previous argument is false and you could be arrested.

Related subject:
Another take on this is: The EU governments are now no more than provisional governments of EU member states that rubber stamp EU Directives into local law. To make up for this loss of power, they look for other areas that they can meddle with. Hence, we have silly laws like these that are designed to shape your mind. The emphasise is not on what the actual picture is, but whether a third party thinks it arousing or not. Even though I don't think the picture is, the policeman might think it is arousing. The picture may be a rape scene from a film, but the single shot saved on your PC might be construed another way.


Interestingly, but not off topic: I started to read the Belgian child porn website, which is quite good. The FAQ details the legislation and it seems a lot more proportionate and reasonable than Britain. http://www.stopchildporno.be/index.php?pid=7
This exert is a good one and is sensible:
Article 383bis does require that Internet users "knowingly" possess child pornography, which means that temporary and purely technical storage cannot be considered punishable possession. Anyone who stumbles across child pornography on the Internet without knowingly making a copy of it is therefore not punishable.
Also this portion is good:
8. Can an employer be prosecuted if one of his employees has child pornography material on his computer?
No. Possession of child pornography material can be punished only if one "knowingly" possesses the material. If this is not the case, the employer cannot be prosecuted.
Why? Because one can argue that if you are unaware of [child]pornographic content on ones computer then one is not liable. This seems sensible.
Is there something similar in Britain?

(I came across the stopchildporno.be site from a link on the UK Home Office's sponsored Internet Watch Foundation after I had read about their CleanFeed operation. I read that their blacklist blocked 50% child porn sites and 50% legal web sites. One article I read wrote that the Home Office would like to use the CleanFeed to censor other areas of the Internet such as UseNet. It was a very interesting read.)

[naimex]

Naimex i think youre on to something, cause its like my parents never forbid me to smoke, so i never started and still i dont feel the need to.

I think i was about 4 or 5 yrs old, in kindergarden i recall one of the teachers there telling one of the other boys, that after he had been peeing he had to wash his hands because he had touched his "little fellow".

The first thought that went thru my mind was "and youre sucking your husbands each night" - :p

And when i was 6 yrs old, my mom told my sister and me about the whole deal, well ofcourse in a non-vulgar way, but well we understood.

Later me and some friends from school found some porn magazines in my friends parents bedroom, vi saw images of oral sex and everything.

Within few yrs we found our way to our parents porn movies and watched them with amazement. :D


Then what have it done to me, for starters ive never raped no one, never felt like raping no one and also, ive never fought anyone, never felt like beating up anyone either. :angel:

All it has given me so far was pre-experience in sexual regard, so when i for the first time was with a girl, i knew what to expect and i did know a good amount of good positions. :D

So im a living example that porn doesnt necessarely make ppl violent or become rapists. ;)

Sometimes i get a good laugh when i see a US dollar bill and the quote "In god we trust" - The heck they do, but when it comes to nudity, they obviously have second thoughts about it. :lol:

Especially the "nipple"-thing, ive never come to realize how its erotic and are being censored out, i mean its the feeding valve for babies!!

Last summer when i was in Orlando Fl, i recall all the signs in shops saying "No shirt, no service", ok if youre in a classy place it looks somewhat akward to be halv way naked, but those signs were everywhere and again, didnt god create us like we are? and dont we trust in god? :D


Exactly...

Also in the young days we always went to our house if we wanted to look at some porn, because my parents didnt mind, and i didnt care.

So i just put on various porn and sat and watched it with some friends, even though my parents were walking around the room and what not.

Of course some of my friends told me that it was a bit embarrassing that my parents were walking around, but hey, we were just watching it.


My neighbour, a girl from my class at the time, she was raised sort of like me, as long as we didnt behave like raving lunatics, we could do what we wanted, so in the summer we just ran around naked, stayed up till like 3 am even though it was schoolday next day...

Still got topgrades in the class, certainly didn't hurt anyone.

It was a utopia so to say...


Of course when you get a little older, you dont just walk around naked, but still, every once in a while I go to a private party and sometimes it ends up with some guys and girls just sitting there watching a porn movie, discussing all the things that are just wrong with the picture.

Like the poor acting and especially the bloopers lol.


Could just be me that was lucky in people I ended up surrounding myself with, could be because I was raised as an individual and not as a clone of the community.

[nellus]

Damn youve all missed the most important point of this



(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal
(whether dead or alive),
No more sexing Droms :(

[Zefrian]

damn it, where am i gonna get my S&M idea's from now :(

there goes mine and my girlfriends sex life :(got no own imagination/fancy? Poor guy ...

[CMaster]

The BBC have an article on it now. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm). As one of the comments says, you could easily argue that Goldeneye is illegal under these laws.

Equally I'm pretty sure that porn of erotic asphixiation would be illegal under the law, yet there is nothing inherently illegal about the act.

[Mr Kot]

The scene, if classified, was with actors so your previous argument is false and you could be arrested.The law does refer to context. If the whole movie contains a scene with actors, possession of that movie does not break the law. If you extract that one scene in such a way that a reasonable person who sees it believes it to be real as well as grossly offensive and disgusting, then possession is an offence. The law is absolute, although it is still being debated and could change yet.



one can argue that if you are unaware of [child]pornographic content on ones computer then one is not liable. This seems sensible.
Is there something similar in Britain? Yes, there is.

Section 64 provides a defence for the person charged to prove any of the following matters:


(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the
image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know,
nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an extreme pornographic image;
(c) that the person—

(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having
been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.


I think that provides adequate and sensible protection from overzealous law enforcers.

[Mr Kot]

Equally I'm pretty sure that porn of erotic asphixiation would be illegal under the law, yet there is nothing inherently illegal about the act.It shouldn't be illegal as it won't be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character". It would imagine it would only be regarded as so if it portrayed the illusion that the victim was really being killed, or that such an attempt was being made.

[CMaster]

It shouldn't be illegal as it won't be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character". It would imagine it would only be regarded as so if it portrayed the illusion that the victim was really being killed, or that such an attempt was being made.


(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

Something which involved asphixiation, even controlled would strike me as being a threat to life. I'm sure there are countless other examples of kinks that are carried out regualry in private that while legal would now be illegal to possess images of, but I am unaware of/cannot recall right now.

[Mr Kot]

That would boil down to the question of whether a "reasonable person" would believe it to be real asphyxiation or just play-acting. Don't forget it would also have to be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character to be illegal.

As for the real thing, any reasonable person should be aware of the risks. If the victim subsequently dies or sustains any kind of brain damage, then the real act would indeed be illegal.

[CMaster]

That would boil down to the question of whether a "reasonable person" would believe it to be real asphyxiation or just play-acting. Don't forget it would also have to be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character to be illegal.

As for the real thing, any reasonable person should be aware of the risks. If the victim subsequently dies or sustains any kind of brain damage, then the real act would indeed be illegal.

Hmm.
Seems I have been reading an "and" as an "or"

[Eternal Pink]

got no own imagination/fancy? Poor guy ...

not really, i'm part of the MTV generation, had it burnt out by TV ages ago

[zii]

Mr.Kot, I disagree with your logic about a classified film.

If a film is classified as legal, but snipping a frame out and viewing it is illegal, then there is something very wrong. The content of the image has not changed, but the way an individual views it has and this is about the way someone interprets something.

Lets expand:
A film is made. It has a scene where a man almost dies from a potential impalement of the arse on an upended drainpipe. In the film the pipe misses his arse and he goes onto save the princess.
John spliced the image of the man about to be impaled and finds it funny but unarousing.
Police find the image, even though the original film was classified and therefore legal, but nick him for this image because they consider it extreme porn' material.
Irgo, if one looks at any image in a way that is not considered acceptable by the police then one could be arrested.

We are now in the land of the Thought Police. This could be perverted to cover other laws or end up being used for purposes that it was unintended for. Similar to the RIPA being used to spy on children. ^^

Freedom of though and expression is something that many hold dear. I am against repressing this part of humanity, especially under the guise of the War On Stuff.

[Mr Kot]

A film is made. It has a scene where a man almost dies from a potential impalement of the arse on an upended drainpipe. In the film the pipe misses his arse and he goes onto save the princess.
John spliced the image of the man about to be impaled and finds it funny but unarousing.
Police find the image, even though the original film was classified and therefore legal, but nick him for this image because they consider it extreme porn' material.You misunderstand.

To commit an offence, the clip in question has to be pornographic (see previous definition) AND grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene AND displays an act likely to result in serious injury AND any reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real. Please don't confuse images of gore with images of extreme porn.

The example you give wouldn't cause the police to raid the place, because the impalement didn't actually happen, the scene you descibe wasn't pornographic and a reasonable person may recognise the person in the clip to be a famous movie actor and therefore wouldn't believe any pending impalement to be real.

Compare that to a clip from a film which resembles home movie footage AND contains ALL the criteria above and hopefully you can see where action may be taken.

The part about the clip becoming illegal despite being taken from a legal movie isn't my opinion or logic, it IS part of the Bill. I'll gladly post that part of the law if you want me to, but as it was rather wordy and took me a while to get my head round, I merely offered my best interpretation for the purpose of putting it simply to a wide audience.

[zii]

The part about the clip becoming illegal despite being taken from a legal movie isn't my opinion or logic, it IS part of the Bill.
My mistake and duly noted.

[RAB]

I cant burn my 'collection' It would produce a fire soooo big it would contribute towards global warming !!

hey I'm married!! what do you expect? I dont get any!!!

lol

[nobby]

All this indepth discussion...

Kinda making it seem one of yous are guilty...?

[rob444]

Damn... time to hide the whip and nipple clips (engrish there probably)

[Zheo]

It all depends on what they mean by "Extreme" they could very well just mean things like child porn, animal porn, and necrophilia. I for one wouldn't miss any of them.

If they mean I can't have lesbian orgies playing on my pc then I'll start a friggin civil war and burn down number 10. Then I'll have Brown handed to the Taliban.

[nobby]

Wouldn't dry anal sex count as extreme as there's the potential risk of tissue ripping :p

[rob444]

Wouldn't dry anal sex count as extreme as there's the potential risk of tissue ripping :p

nobby knows, poor nobby :p

[nobby]

Well as my mum always said...
"Don't knock it, until you've tried it..." :p

[Hoder]

Wouldn't dry anal sex count as extreme as there's the potential risk of tissue ripping :pwhy did Stu Francis from Crackerjack spring to mind then? That's just wrong... :lol:

Anyway, we'd better keep this thread in some kind of reasonable taste if it's to stay open.

[solid-rock]

Aww, but distasteful is what we excelll at :P.

As Namimex already pointed out, in Denmark if its sexual it seems to have a legislative immunity, save for the true extremes like Snuff. So who knows, if our neighbours keep banning stuff we might start getting Porn tourists :P.

[zii]

why did Stu Francis from Crackerjack spring to mind then? That's just wrong... :lol:

Probably because one of his quotes was:
"Ooh, I could rip a tissue"

"Ooh, I could bend a pipe cleaner"

"Ooh, I could fight a small child"

Clearly, a pervert who has now been locked up for crushing grapes in public between his buttocks.

And the bill continues; More at the foreplay stage than the grande finale.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/05/extreme_law_lords/

This Japanese employee has won the pornothon at work. He certainly has reached the grande finale, about 177,000 times. Congratulations.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/japanese_council_worker/

[Sharper Blade]

Pics or it didn't happen.
[ edited - pic removed ]

[zii]

And the reel carries on spinning.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/08/crime_bill_passes/

[Mr Kot]

An update:

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill has indeed received royal assent and become law. The section on extreme porn is largely unchanged but has not come into effect just yet. However, there is an important new defence:


66 Defence: participation in consensual acts

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person (“D”) is charged with an offence under section 63, and
(b) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within
paragraphs (a) to (c) (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7)
of that section.
(2) It is a defence for D to prove—

(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual
harm on any person, and
(c) if the image portrays an act within section 63(7)(c), that what is
portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.
(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is “non-consensual”
harm if—

(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it
being inflicted on himself or herself; or
(b) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person
does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted.


I'm sure the lawyers will grow rich and fat on this one. Just make sure you record consent before allowing yourself to be spanked to death in your home-made snuff movies.

[Asurmen Spec Op]

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse
Damn you ennnggglllaaaaannnnddd!!!!

Well as my mum always said...
"Don't knock it, until you've tried it..." :p

This explains a lot about you.

[Nymphette79]

I cant burn my 'collection' It would produce a fire soooo big it would contribute towards global warming !!

hey I'm married!! what do you expect? I dont get any!!!

lol

PFFT!!
Look/watch it together, us women love porn just as much as u men & not the boring crap u get on movies24 but full on hardcore stuff ;)

[DrRisk]

PFFT!!
Look/watch it together, us women love porn just as much as u men & not the boring crap u get on movies24 but full on hardcore stuff ;)

i fuken lol'd.

[Matanius]

i fuken lol'd. I didn't, I just thought back to the first time I watched porn with my fiancée :p

She's right though. Haven't come across a lady yet that hasn't (sometimes after denying it for a long time) admitted to liking porn.