OTT - Burn your p0rn guys & gals

[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.

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?


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 ) 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" -

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.


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.

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.

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.

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?

[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 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" -

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.


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.. 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"