Owning or looking at 'Extreme' pornographic images to be outlawed in UK.

[Feckless Wench]

The criminal law is drafted with great care, but sometimes its specific wording can trap victims and sentencers alike into facing unintended and unacceptable consequences." - Jack Straw, opening for the Government in the House of Commons debate on this legislation in October 2007.

 

 

In the UK, the government is currently trying to pass a bill to make 'Images of Extreme Pornography' illegal to own or view. This means that images of any sado-masochistic practices could become illegal, regardless of the situation in which they were shot. Images for personal use come under this category as well, regardless of whether you and your partner choose to make the images and the only people contained in them are the two of you.

 

This smacks of Big Brother. What right have the government over any 'bedroom' indulgences? Is it not against our Human Rights for them to pass such a bill? This has upset people in the UK to the point that a group has been formed to oppose this ridiculous law. View the BackLash website here.

 

I was interested to know exactly what classifies an image as 'extreme pornography' so, taken from the BackLash website, here is what makes a pornographic image 'extreme'.

 

3) An image is "pornographic" if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

 

 

(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,

 

(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,

 

© 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 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.

 

Now I agree that many of the things outlined above are pretty distasteful...BUT...in the case where the image is either faked or posed it surely cannot be classed as 'illegal'. According to this explanation of 'extreme' a pic of two naked or provocatively dressed people posing with weapons of any kind could very well be illegal by tomorrow.

 

Surely basic pornography, where little boys learn think they are learning about sex when in reality all they are learning about is often an act that is physically improbable should be classed as far more 'harmful' than this type of image. You ban one type, you have to ban the other, after all, what one person finds titillating another will find boring. Who's to say who makes that final decision?

 

How this law will ever be policed is another matter. It will include ALL 'extreme pornography' even that created in one's home and never shared outside of the home. It seems to me that this ridiculous law, if passed, will end up on the junkheap along with the "It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament" law!

 

 

I am always amazed that the USA with it's 'Freedom of speech' etc allows pornographic images to remain illegal in many states. HOW does that constitute 'Freedom' of anything? Do you feel that banning ANY images made by consenting parties is against out human rights? What are your opinions on such matters? Should we be free to make and view whatever images we like...as long as all parties involved are consenting?

[DaMan]

Actually those examples of extreme porn are things most people find offensive anyway. Even people that like porn might find some of those offensve. I sure don't like it when I come across those extreme porn sites. I don't want to get graphic. Lets just say it fits in b above.

[ImWithStupid]

I'm surprised they didn't put in;

 

(e) an act involving urin or feces with the intent to cause sexual exitement.

[timesjoke]

I have always wondered about the "pretend" films like snuff films or kiddie porn.

 

The makers and buyers of films like this are skirting the laws by claiming it is all fake but what their doing is feeding the desires of some very sick people. Call me old, call me square, but all I can see is harm comming from these kinds of films. If nothing else, I believe they can stir up the desires of people to act on impulses they may not have acted on otherwise.

 

 

For me there is a fine line with the rough sex. Sure, I can see where roll play and even some pain can be fun during sex, I have known a few wild ladies in my time (red heads mostly) but as with everything in life, there should be a limit. For the sake of arguement, I do not see how smacking someone in the head with a hammer could be considered sex, but I guess there are all sorts of strange people out there.

 

 

I have no real pity for those who do things like kiddie porn (fake or real) and then they try to wrap themselves in the flag and ask for protections, who is protecting the little kids who could get molested? Sure, people are responsible for their actions but that does not mean we should be feeding their sickness either.

 

 

 

I just have one question, what ever happened to things being kept behind closed doors?

[ImWithStupid]

I just have one question, what ever happened to things being kept behind closed doors?

 

The internet happened.

[snafu]

I'm not into it but if someone wants to do a dog or a something don't see the problem. And A little play bondage is cool but this sadistic stuff should be ilegal. I've seen some pretty teribble stuff that no one should endure just to make a buck.

[ImWithStupid]

I'm not into it but if someone wants to do a dog or a something don't see the problem. And A little play bondage is cool but this sadistic stuff should be ilegal. I've seen some pretty teribble stuff that no one should endure just to make a buck.

 

You mean I should have gotten paid for that stuff.

[Feckless Wench]

My point here is that the government should have no say in what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. IF people choose to record any (legal) activities that they get up to then that is surely a matter for them and them only.

 

The main issue as far as I can see it is that many people in fact like to look at 'extreme' images...although according to the wording of this law, a provocatively dressed cowboy/girl toting a gun suggestively could actually be regarded as 'extreme'.

 

Where is the line going to be drawn between erotic art and extreme pornography? Who has the right to decide? After all, what one finds to be art, another will find to be porn.

 

It seems that the government is targeting those who are fans of BDSM...this is the same government that tried to make homosexuality an illegal act....and the same government that has hit the headlines MANY times with its own members being caught engaged in acts of BDSM.

 

While I completely agree that no-one should ever be forced into any situation in which they are uncomfortable or threatened, I completely disagree that the government has any right to stick its nose into what two CONSENTING adults do.

 

Private images for private use....is a phrase used in this prospective law. How can something that is 'private' be anyone's business but the owners?

[Feckless Wench]

I'm not into it but if someone wants to do a dog or a something don't see the problem. And A little play bondage is cool but this sadistic stuff should be ilegal. I've seen some pretty teribble stuff that no one should endure just to make a buck.

 

I see a problem with someone wanting to do a dog....the problem is that the dog has no say in the matter.

 

I don't however see a problem with the sadistic stuff....human beings are capable of speech, if they don't like it then they can say so. I've seen some pretty extreme stuff too, although I saw it live and I have to say, I knew the parties involved and no-one was 'enduring' anything that they didn't want to.

 

Just because one person finds something distasteful does not mean that others will share their feelings of revulsion etc. If we are a 'free' country then we must be free to make up our own minds about what images we make and look at.

[timesjoke]

I see a problem with someone wanting to do a dog....the problem is that the dog has no say in the matter.

 

I don't however see a problem with the sadistic stuff....human beings are capable of speech, if they don't like it then they can say so. I've seen some pretty extreme stuff too, although I saw it live and I have to say, I knew the parties involved and no-one was 'enduring' anything that they didn't want to.

 

Just because one person finds something distasteful does not mean that others will share their feelings of revulsion etc. If we are a 'free' country then we must be free to make up our own minds about what images we make and look at.

 

 

The problem is how do we look at a video and know 100% that the person being horribly beaten "truly" wanted to be beat so harshly?

 

Could they be doing it for money?

 

Could they be pressured with threats against them or their loved ones?

 

How about just in fear of their own lives like how a battered wife will stay in an abusive relationship for 20 years because she feels she has no other choice?

 

 

Again, keep it private in your own bedroom and nobody knows anything anyway, but if your taping your actions and other people see it to turn you in somehow, then your private actions are no longer private, they have become public, that change of status is what is changing the situation.

 

 

I saw part of a "fake" kiddie porn movie while I was in law enforcement that looked so real I could not fully watch it. Their story line was a rape scene of a young girl. She was forced on her face, her clothes ripped off, and the male raped her from behind with the "little girl" screaming and begging the man to stop.

 

Who could even consider making something like that?

 

Who would get off watching somethign like that?

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I believe this kind of thing should be illegal.

[Feckless Wench]

The problem is how do we look at a video and know 100% that the person being horribly beaten "truly" wanted to be beat so harshly?

 

Could they be doing it for money?

 

Could they be pressured with threats against them or their loved ones?

 

How about just in fear of their own lives like how a battered wife will stay in an abusive relationship for 20 years because she feels she has no other choice?

 

 

Again, keep it private in your own bedroom and nobody knows anything anyway, but if your taping your actions and other people see it to turn you in somehow, then your private actions are no longer private, they have become public, that change of status is what is changing the situation.

 

 

I saw part of a "fake" kiddie porn movie while I was in law enforcement that looked so real I could not fully watch it. Their story line was a rape scene of a young girl. She was forced on her face, her clothes ripped off, and the male raped her from behind with the "little girl" screaming and begging the man to stop.

 

Who could even consider making something like that?

 

Who would get off watching somethign like that?

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I believe this kind of thing should be illegal.

 

Kiddie porn is illegal in most countries, that's not what the law is aimed at. This law is aimed at legal activities being photographed or filmed for private use.

 

I agree that there is plenty that should not be shared out there on the web, but as to what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes...let it stay private.

 

People in battered relationships who live in fear have choices, perhaps they cannot see it at that moment but the choice to leave is always there.

 

Many people do make these movies etc for money...and a lot of them choose to work that way. Sex workers in the UK have actually voted to get this law outlawed before it is ever passed....are those the actions of people who are working through fear or just for the money?

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

The criminal law is drafted with great care, but sometimes its specific wording can trap victims and sentencers alike into facing unintended and unacceptable consequences." - Jack Straw, opening for the Government in the House of Commons debate on this legislation in October 2007.

 

 

In the UK, the government is currently trying to pass a bill to make 'Images of Extreme Pornography' illegal to own or view. This means that images of any sado-masochistic practices could become illegal, regardless of the situation in which they were shot. Images for personal use come under this category as well, regardless of whether you and your partner choose to make the images and the only people contained in them are the two of you.

 

This smacks of Big Brother. What right have the government over any 'bedroom' indulgences? Is it not against our Human Rights for them to pass such a bill? This has upset people in the UK to the point that a group has been formed to oppose this ridiculous law. View the BackLash website here.

 

I was interested to know exactly what classifies an image as 'extreme pornography' so, taken from the BackLash website, here is what makes a pornographic image 'extreme'.

 

3) An image is "pornographic" if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

 

 

(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,

 

(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,

 

© 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 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.

 

Now I agree that many of the things outlined above are pretty distasteful...BUT...in the case where the image is either faked or posed it surely cannot be classed as 'illegal'. According to this explanation of 'extreme' a pic of two naked or provocatively dressed people posing with weapons of any kind could very well be illegal by tomorrow.

 

Surely basic pornography, where little boys learn think they are learning about sex when in reality all they are learning about is often an act that is physically improbable should be classed as far more 'harmful' than this type of image. You ban one type, you have to ban the other, after all, what one person finds titillating another will find boring. Who's to say who makes that final decision?

 

How this law will ever be policed is another matter. It will include ALL 'extreme pornography' even that created in one's home and never shared outside of the home. It seems to me that this ridiculous law, if passed, will end up on the junkheap along with the "It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament" law!

 

 

I am always amazed that the USA with it's 'Freedom of speech' etc allows pornographic images to remain illegal in many states. HOW does that constitute 'Freedom' of anything? Do you feel that banning ANY images made by consenting parties is against out human rights? What are your opinions on such matters? Should we be free to make and view whatever images we like...as long as all parties involved are consenting?

 

I dont think anything is wrong with (3) above.

 

This is all just rubbish. The next thing will be committees, and other groups of politicians sitting down to talk crap about it. They will of course be paid a fortune for this at our expense.

 

Honestly can you imagine trying to stop people having pictures of a nature likely to cause sexual arousal. What next? will it be illegal for people to wear swim wear, which prety much amounts to the same thing.

[snafu]

The problem is how do we look at a video and know 100% that the person being horribly beaten "truly" wanted to be beat so harshly?

 

Could they be doing it for money?

 

Could they be pressured with threats against them or their loved ones?

 

How about just in fear of their own lives like how a battered wife will stay in an abusive relationship for 20 years because she feels she has no other choice?

 

 

Again, keep it private in your own bedroom and nobody knows anything anyway, but if your taping your actions and other people see it to turn you in somehow, then your private actions are no longer private, they have become public, that change of status is what is changing the situation.

 

 

I saw part of a "fake" kiddie porn movie while I was in law enforcement that looked so real I could not fully watch it. Their story line was a rape scene of a young girl. She was forced on her face, her clothes ripped off, and the male raped her from behind with the "little girl" screaming and begging the man to stop.

 

Who could even consider making something like that?

 

Who would get off watching somethign like that?

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I believe this kind of thing should be illegal.

 

That's just it. I bet my last dollar that most of these girls being beaten and tortured aren't doing because they like the pain.

[timesjoke]

Kiddie porn is illegal in most countries, that's not what the law is aimed at. This law is aimed at legal activities being photographed or filmed for private use.

 

Fake kiddie porn is legal, and was what I was speaking about.

 

If you notice, there is the "appears" word in a lot of the examples.

 

 

I would say the acts stop being for private use the second it is taped, if not then, I would say if someone other then the actors viewed it.

 

 

I agree that there is plenty that should not be shared out there on the web, but as to what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes...let it stay private.

 

I agree, but the second they share their acts it then becomes public, not private.

 

People in battered relationships who live in fear have choices, perhaps they cannot see it at that moment but the choice to leave is always there.

 

But again they could still be acting from pressure, not sexual desire for that level of abuse from the partner being my point. Who can say for sure? Should we just assume every sexual act commited on a female is always wanted?

 

Many people do make these movies etc for money...and a lot of them choose to work that way. Sex workers in the UK have actually voted to get this law outlawed before it is ever passed....are those the actions of people who are working through fear or just for the money?

 

Most of the sex industry is driven by drug addiction of one type or another in most places. They can make lots of money in a short time to feed theior habit, so anything that would get in the way of that income, would get in the way of their addiction.

 

 

Even without the drug problems, who cares what the workers want? My main job is to bid large construction jobs, shopping malls and stuff, do you have any idea how much money it costs to meet all the regulations for these kinds of projects?

 

If I could get around laws I don't like that effect my job I could make massive money, so I understand why they don't want the laws, but that does not mean the laws are wrong just because they will reduce profits for these workers.

 

 

 

That's just it. I bet my last dollar that most of these girls being beaten and tortured aren't doing because they like the pain.

 

 

And if it is only a case of making money, then it is no longer about the freedom of sexual desires but just another case of people being taken advantage of.

 

 

 

 

I have to come back to the fact that nobody is talking aobut restricting what you do in your bedroom, they are talking about movies, if two people are having violent sex, and another person is running a camera, it is no longer a private sex act, it is now public, and subject to different treatment in my opinion.

 

 

Now, if you have an unmanned camera taping you and you never show the tape to anyone else, I would see that as harmless, but we still must consider if both parties were completely consenting or just going along from fear or something.

[Feckless Wench]

Now, if you have an unmanned camera taping you and you never show the tape to anyone else, I would see that as harmless, but we still must consider if both parties were completely consenting or just going along from fear or something.

 

 

That's my point exactly though, this law IS going to try and stop private images for private use.

[timesjoke]

That's my point exactly though, this law IS going to try and stop private images for private use.

 

Do you have any idea how difficult that would be?

Let's say you and your mate taped him spanking you and you only want the video for your own viewing pleasure, how would the government ever find out?

 

 

If they were that good there would never be unsolved crimes.

 

 

 

Obviously your video would need to be made public in some way, and it is allowing this kind of thing out into the public that is what their concerned with.

 

Even if this law goes into effect, just always keep your sexual life private and you will never be bothered by it.

[Feckless Wench]

I agree, what is private should remain so. However, if you read carefully into what this law is designed to cover, it does indeed include such images. How on earth the government ever expect to police this is just laughable.

 

So I photograph my partner in a compromising position....so what! As long as the image is for our own use then I cannot see how anyone could ever make that unlawful.

[timesjoke]

I agree, what is private should remain so. However, if you read carefully into what this law is designed to cover, it does indeed include such images. How on earth the government ever expect to police this is just laughable.

 

So I photograph my partner in a compromising position....so what! As long as the image is for our own use then I cannot see how anyone could ever make that unlawful.

 

 

 

As ex law enforcement I can tell you that many times, they write laws with enough slack to allow for unforseen events. Let's consider a pedaphile report where they search a guy and he has lots of what he calls legal movies but he cannot prove the actors in the movies are adults. The state cannot prove they are children either, so now your sitting there holding very horrible material but you cannot do anything about it.

 

 

But, even with this example, the investigation must start somehwere. They don't know to look at him without a reason comming up to get their attention.

[snafu]

Abuse is abuse. It doesn?t matter if it's filmed or not. It's illegal to beat someone or sexually abuse them. So to film it would only incriminate yourself.

[Feckless Wench]

Abuse is abuse. It doesn’t matter if it's filmed or not. It's illegal to beat someone or sexually abuse them. So to film it would only incriminate yourself.

 

It's not illegal to beat someone with their consent. Or to indulge in what could be considered sexual abuse....as long as the 'abused' is consenting.

[snafu]

It's not illegal to beat someone with their consent. Or to indulge in what could be considered sexual abuse....as long as the 'abused' is consenting.

 

Yes it is. If the cops sees someone beating someone, it dosn't matter if the victim says its' ok. The state takes over and prosecutes.

[Feckless Wench]

Not in the Uk they don't. The person being beaten would need to press charges if they were not consenting. If the crown chose to prosecute the 'beater' then the 'beaten' could stop it right there by saying that they consented.

[timesjoke]

Not in the Uk they don't. The person being beaten would need to press charges if they were not consenting. If the crown chose to prosecute the 'beater' then the 'beaten' could stop it right there by saying that they consented.

 

In America there are laws where the prosecuter can file without the victim. Domestic violence and beating the elderly are two good examples.

 

 

 

I believe the point Snaf was going to make was how do we know for sure that the woman "liked" the acts? There could be a lot of reasons other than enjoyment for the woman to be involved in violent sex.

[Feckless Wench]

I believe the point Snaf was going to make was how do we know for sure that the woman "liked" the acts? There could be a lot of reasons other than enjoyment for the woman to be involved in violent sex.

 

If you're going to mention that the woman may not be consenting then how about the man?

[ImWithStupid]

Yes it is. If the cops sees someone beating someone, it dosn't matter if the victim says its' ok. The state takes over and prosecutes.

 

At the point that the person consents to the act, it isn't abuse.

 

I'm not talking about domestic violence, that's a different story, I mean more of spanking, whipping, candle wax on the nipples, etc... Stuff intended for sexual gratification.

 

Just as their are sadistic people out there who "get off" on hurting people, you also have masachistic people who "get off" on pain being inflicted on them. There are people who pay dominatrix type people a lot of money to be hurt, punished and/or treated like sh t.