RE: Kinky Porn Illegal?

RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

TheHungryTiger -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/18/2008 8:08:52 AM)
If there is anything that screams out 'sock puppet account' more, it would be a post less than 10 minutes after what I posted saying 'Wow, Tiger is go great'

thetammyjo -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/18/2008 8:36:52 AM)
Years ago back in my undergraduate days I did an honor's project about pornography. I lived in Iowa so I looked at the laws of that state at that time. Then (1990) it was illegal to mix intercourse and direct sexual stimulation with SM in movies. Why? The reasoning was that if someone was tied up and being hurt, it was too confusing for the state to figure out if there was real consent or not in a given situation. So you could "torture" someone in an SM film but no sex, and if you had sex then no SM beyond hands tied cause I did watch a movie ("Three Daughters" I believe it was called) where in one scene hands were tied during sex. I have no idea if the laws have changed but given the rise of "fundamentalists" since I left Iowa, I would not be surprised.

BrigandDoom -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/18/2008 1:45:14 PM)
Our thread is in regards to new UK legislation & not US. The references put in regards child sex offences was as an example to illustrate the fact that it is too damn easy to be completely innocent of any crime, and you can now be charges, prosecuted and jailed on the strength of a statement! I went through the current legislation with a US assistant DA online the other afternoon and she described the 2003 CJA as "third world"! What worries many of us is that once they linked the new CJIA 2008 in with the CJA 2003 they will start prosecuting more and more innocent people. There is a craze with in the establishment within the UK to keep the news media happy. I for one believe that we would be a lot better off if the government was prevented from reading the press. Despite my personal loathing for Margaret Thatcher, as a country we were a lot better off legislation wise as she wasn't led by Fleet Street editorials.

ShatteredSoul123 -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/19/2008 7:45:04 AM)
ONE) This thread is about KINKY porn and its legal status. Not KIDDY porn. Yes I realized this after posting... and am very sorry for the mistake! TWO) That little posting you made on the subject that you seem to be so proud of gets fantisy and reality mixed up with each other. The person you quote was not ranting and railing againt fantisy images. They were complaining about real images. No the person was ranting about how these types of images are stepping stones. Neither of us get anything confused. THREE) The Judge Gene Carter link at the end is from 1998 and is hopelessly out of date. I do thank you for the link completely. I was actually only posting the 1998 link to show the attitude of how the USA treats fake images as opposed to what is happening in UK where it seemingly doesn't matter if they are faked or not. FOUR) Even though the supreme court struck down this law, it only applies to virtual child porn. Not to real child porn. Real child porn is still ilegal. The 'good old U S of A' does not say that images of child porn are iniocent. Well thank the good lord above for this I hope we all agree! FIVE) If your going to make postings that are along the lines of 'hey, looking at child porn is not such a big deal' you might do better to cover your tracks. Taking a week old thread, then making two posts only an hour apart from each other 2 posts? I am truly confused what you mean by this? titleAndStar(1,0,0,false,"","")Vanilla Posts: 1 Joined: 5/17/2008 Status: online > just screams out 'sock puppet account'. I have no idea what a sock puppet account is? > Especialy when the first account gives tips and advice for anonomyus surfing and then the second account goes out of its way to post anyomusoly Again I have no idea what you are talking about! If I wanted to post anonymously I wouldn't be doing so with a website I have been posting on these forums for years. Rather then searching by name, how about just search for the term alternativealbany and see I have been posting on these forums without issues for a LONG time. Its just been a while (sense 2006) sense I last posted. I am truly sorry if I seemed spammy or whatever that was not my intent. =/

BeachMystress -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/19/2008 5:19:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger The Longhurst thing again? After draging on for the past 5 years, Im suprised anyone in the kink scene HASENT read about it. I'd never heard about it. Not all of us seek out BDSM related news stories and not all of us watch the nightly news. quote: ORIGINAL: missfrillypants or saying that because i've met a lot of vegetarian lesbians that if you want women to stop becoming lesbians, you just have to feed them red meat once and awhile. LMAO.. you'd have a lot of men experimenting with this to make women bi so they could watch, if this were the case! LoL Great example! quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The real issue is in how the police and CPS will apply the legislation. This is very true. Anyone who has ever talked their way out of a speeding ticket knows that the police do have slight leeway on how to deal with a situation. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I've contacted the local police HQ to request a meeting to discuss the legislation and its application alongside the realities of what bdsm is about, with a view to making recommendations on how it is interpreted and applied Locally, one of our dungeons works with the Sherrif's office to help them recognize the difference between a healthy BDSM relationship and an abusive relationship. New Deputies are given a tour of the facility and get to talk with people in BDSM relationships. It helps them differentiate between domestic abuse and a home which may look abusive, but is totally consensual and sought out by both parties involved. Open communication can help. quote: ORIGINAL: incantatrice As for having an interview at the local police station with the Chief Superintendant, doesn’t this seem like a complete waste of time, unless you want free coffee and biscuits! The Police are not the bad guys here and they will not be able to help with any advice at this early stage of the law being enforced. The above example of the Dungeon helping educate the local police shows this isn't a waste of time. The police are the first level of the justice system. Helping them to understand the difference between "fun and games" and a serious problem is a good thing. The article states "My primary concern is the vagueness of the offence," says Mr Garnier. "It was very subjective and it would not be clear to me how anybody would know if an offence had been committed." Subjective means the responding officer has to use his or her own best judgement as to if something is an actual problem. Education can be the key. quote: ORIGINAL: BrigandDoom Our thread is in regards to new UK legislation & not US. The references put in regards child sex offences was as an example to illustrate the fact that it is too damn easy to be completely innocent of any crime, and you can now be charges, prosecuted and jailed on the strength of a statement! You can even be prosecuted and jailed in the US now on the strength of a lie you make. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gBRVgfzeDlQxZUwHOb5H3Yfm1zwwD90OU6IG0 A new law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child pornography. It does not require that someone actually possesses child pornography." and, more of interest to age play people in the BDSM community "Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law." And in http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-scotus20-2008may20,0,6024926.story they report that "Speaking for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law can punish an "outright liar" who offers illegal material as well as the truthful seller." I do not know how effective the overall initiative will be in stopping that particular problem. While I do agree that there is a bias in reporting in all forms of media, child porn and the related issues do not seem to be the intent of the article that started this thread. quote: ORIGINAL: ShatteredSoul123 I have no idea what a sock puppet account is? It is when you create an account to make a post that you do not want associated with your regular nic. It could be for purposes of supporting your own claims on another nick or to put forth an idea that is going to be unpopular. In any case, you can avoid people thinking this of you and let them know who you "used to be" by adding it to your sig. You get to your sig via the MyProfile link at the top of the forum page. http://www.collarchat.com/editprofile.asp Just add something like.. the poster formerly known as (insert name here) or.. I'm (insert name here) but I can't get into my regular account!

TheHungryTiger -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/19/2008 8:38:33 PM)
quote: You can even be prosecuted and jailed in the US now on the strength of a lie you make. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gBRVgfzeDlQxZUwHOb5H3Yfm1zwwD90OU6IG0 A new law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child pornography. It does not require that someone actually possesses child pornography." and, more of interest to age play people in the BDSM community "Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law." And in http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-scotus20-2008may20,0,6024926.story they report that "Speaking for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law can punish an "outright liar" who offers illegal material as well as the truthful seller." I was wondering how long it would take untill someone spun this into a 'Oh no, this new law is opresing kinksters' If I walk into an airport with a lump of playdough that has the inside wiring of an alarm clock straped to it with the wires sticking into the playdough and I scream out 'I HAVE A BOMB' I am going to get into a whole heap of trouble even if the bomb isnt real. Likewise, saying 'I will give you 20 bucks to have sex with me' is againt the law as solitication even if you dont actualy wind up exchanging sex for money. Calling up my ex-girlfriends new boyfriend and telling him repeadidly that he better watch his back because Im going to kill him is still going to land you in trouble with the law even if you dont actualy plan or intend to kill him. People have been procusited for 'a lie' for ages now on mutiple difrent crimes. This ruling is nothing new. As far as ageplayers being worried, the court spicificly said the law as NOT overly broad and only applies to the case where you claim the images are real. So ageplayers who swap images and tell each other 'here, let me give you some AB/DL pics' is in no risk of winding up in court. Its only the people who take those images and try and pass them off as being real child porn that this law impacts. (Amazing? Aint it? The court spicificly states 'this law is not overly broad' and peoples first knee-jerk reaction is to say the law is overly broad.)

Lucylastic -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/20/2008 6:11:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger If there is anything that screams out 'sock puppet account' more, it would be a post less than 10 minutes after what I posted saying 'Wow, Tiger is go great' Nah I dont bother with extra accounts, Ive been Lucylastic for 14 years, I see no point in making up other accounts just to be snide or stupid or sneaky, I am me for all my faults, foibles and faux pas. I just happened to be reading shatterdsouls post and links, came back and saw your response, and as I was feeling a lil confused as to how it went from kink images to child porn, your response made what I was going to say kinda redundant, so I said you made a better post than me, sheesh. Lucy

TheHungryTiger -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/20/2008 6:39:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Nah I dont bother with extra accounts, Ive been Lucylastic for 14 years, I see no point in making up other accounts just to be snide or stupid or sneaky, I am me for all my faults, foibles and faux pas. I just happened to be reading shatterdsouls post and links, came back and saw your response, and as I was feeling a lil confused as to how it went from kink images to child porn, your response made what I was going to say kinda redundant, so I said you made a better post than me, sheesh. Lucy Oh come on now, no REAL person would ever dare to say that something I write actualy makes sense. :-P

Lucylastic -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/20/2008 6:44:09 AM)
I happen to be a fan of your tutorials, I think I have mentioned your site before to more than one person, so yeah, someone shoot me!!!! ;-P Lucy

GreedyTop -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/20/2008 11:09:03 PM)
bang (happy now?? ) grins

Lucylastic -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/21/2008 3:49:03 AM)
Does an over dramatic dying swan thing clutching my breast and staggering around (worthy of an oscar I tells ya) Greedy thankyou for puttin me out of my misery, but like the phoenix I will arise again, weeeeeeeeeee[:)] Lucy

GreedyTop -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/21/2008 5:36:54 AM)
LOL Lucy.. love the visual ;)

BrigandDoom -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/23/2008 5:12:13 AM)
Just an update on the CJIA 2008, due to come into force January 2009, as yet no-one still knows what is and isn't illegal under the terms of the act. The Ministry of Justice in their wisdom seem to be leaving that little gem to the courts to decide, so what Pc Plod thinks is illegal, a judge may yet disagree! The bit that worries many is that the more serious images (which we still haven't had classified yet!) could result in a jail of 2 years or more if your convicted. If you get the two year or longer sentence you also are mandatorily placed on the sex offenders register! There are lots and lots of other grey areas, and we are now of the opinion that any conviction would be easily challenged in the ECHR as the we believe the acts sections 62 - 67 which effects the porn images is sooo poorly worded that it is breach of the Human Rights Act.

LadyEllen -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/23/2008 5:18:29 AM)
has the wording changed since it was a bill? Seemed fairly clear in the bill, albeit that it required some clarification on how "serious injury" will be interpreted and applied, and how proximate and immediate a threat to life must be for it to be considered life threatening. The main issue as I saw it with the bill, was in the potential for ignorant interpretation and application of it - and that innocent people might thereby be arrested, in full view of their neighbours/colleagues and have their PC seized; there is only one other category of offender that occurs to in relation to pornography, and on the basis that tongues will wag, one's life will be ruined even if no charges are proferred. E

BrigandDoom -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/23/2008 6:33:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen has the wording changed since it was a bill? Seemed fairly clear in the bill, albeit that it required some clarification on how "serious injury" will be interpreted and applied, and how proximate and immediate a threat to life must be for it to be considered life threatening. The main issue as I saw it with the bill, was in the potential for ignorant interpretation and application of it - and that innocent people might thereby be arrested, in full view of their neighbours/colleagues and have their PC seized; there is only one other category of offender that occurs to in relation to pornography, and on the basis that tongues will wag, one's life will be ruined even if no charges are proferred. E The wording is described by m' learned colleague as incomprehensible, she being a barrister of some 20 years experience. There are far too many if buts and maybe's involved. There really needs to be a finite template to work from, something that this act spectacularily fails to elaborate upon. The wording is far too ambiguous and is open to far too much interpretation. We to are worried about peoples houses being raided. After the public farce that was Operation Ore, 33 innocent people committed suicide, lots more innocent people had their names dragged through ther mud, and that damage is never repaired. I gather there is a group action being planned, and possibly even being actioned now against the police and possibly the MoJ/Home Office due to the piss poor handling of this case. As you fear, we could well be next. The local PPU are not looking forward to a possible trebling of their case work for all of the wrong reasons. Even though only a two year sentence or longer will see automatic entry onto the sex offenders register, there is concern that the door way might be there for others convicted of lesser offences to be added. This is not what the regiister was originally set up for and this could possibly be the death knell for it as there is serious disquite in Europe over it. The ECHR could well rule that it is illegal as it now seems to be being used as a "punishment" rather than as a method to monitor potential dangerous people.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125