Ramifications of CJIA being passed (Full Version)

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



Message

latexbarbiets -> Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/6/2008 4:26:48 PM)

Seems the UK has PASSED the CJIA bill/law whatever which now makes it illegal to own any ""Any pictures which appear to show acts threatening a person's life or serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals". I just love how they make it vague and such.

I know this has been talked to death about before it was passed but now that it's law I wonder how they are going to pursue and prosecute cases. I'm guessing at LEAST 50% of the male population in the UK violates this law with the porn they have on their machines.  How do you think this might affect any US laws on the subject. Seems we all have fewer and fewer rights in the world nowadays;(



BrigandDoom -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/8/2008 8:06:12 AM)

As the UK seems to be the new test bed for stupid and unfair legislation, once the act has been en-acted in January 2009 i've no doubt who ever is elected president and which ever party rules wills ee how it functions and then as anything sexual offences wise is an easy target to attack they will no doubt introduce it!
 
It seems the lessons from as far back as prohibition have never been learnt, too many puritains trying to run everryones lives. If they don't like how the majority live on this planet, then theres a satelite of Jupiter called Europa, it seems to be able to support life, so why don't they sod off out there!



Alumbrado -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/8/2008 8:14:11 AM)

quote:

show acts threatening a person's life or serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals".


So they have effectively made it illegal to possess a self defense manual or video?



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/8/2008 9:15:14 AM)

quote:

I just love how they make it vague and such.
Its not.

The term 'serious injury' has a very percice legal meaning. Its linked to the difrence between ABH and GBH. However, since this meaning is defined elsewhere in the law, and not in the CJIA itself, people just assume that it is vague.

But as you said, the whole thing has already been debated to death. If nobody listened then, its unlikely anyone will listen now. Once people buy into the notion of 'the law is so vague it could apply to anything' its hard to convince them that the sky isnt falling.



BrigandDoom -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/8/2008 9:38:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

I just love how they make it vague and such.
Its not.

The term 'serious injury' has a very percice legal meaning. Its linked to the difrence between ABH and GBH. However, since this meaning is defined elsewhere in the law, and not in the CJIA itself, people just assume that it is vague.

But as you said, the whole thing has already been debated to death. If nobody listened then, its unlikely anyone will listen now. Once people buy into the notion of 'the law is so vague it could apply to anything' its hard to convince them that the sky isnt falling.



Its not people think that, its a fact! Even long serving barristers, judges, solicitors and professors of law are baffled by it! There is no way that it can be defined as precise as even our government can not yet say what is or is not legal under sections 62-67. There is no case law to support this act. nor have any parameters been set by the legislators themselves.
 
It seems that all sides are now awaiting the first court case in order to try and get some clarity. Btw, if your wondering I am a qualified solicitor so I do know what I am talking about.



DMFParadox -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/11/2008 5:34:01 AM)

Then for the sake of your neighbors be the solicitor that wins the first case on this one.  Or hope that the defendants are posh enough to afford one better than Johnny Cochran.

BTW, I'm moving to Canada.  Wait, no, I mean Germany.  Um, I mean... dammit, it just about sucks to be a edge-play citizen anywhere these days.  Iziba?  Naw, they're cracking down there too.  Wait, I know... I'll just get stupid rich.  Then I'm not in violation of the 'alive while poor' laws.

I hear that marching actually works in places like France and South Korea.  Here in the Home Of The Free, however, we pay taxes so that we have a heavily armed police force that protects our noble government from such nuisances as its own citizens.  God Bless America.

grrr... having a moment... usually I'm not that displeased with the way things are run here.  But right now I'm feeling the constraints of civilization rather heavily.  I think I'll go jaywalk and steal a road sign or something to get over it.  (note heavy use of irony.)



Alumbrado -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/11/2008 6:47:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrigandDoom

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

I just love how they make it vague and such.
Its not.

The term 'serious injury' has a very percice legal meaning. Its linked to the difrence between ABH and GBH. However, since this meaning is defined elsewhere in the law, and not in the CJIA itself, people just assume that it is vague.

But as you said, the whole thing has already been debated to death. If nobody listened then, its unlikely anyone will listen now. Once people buy into the notion of 'the law is so vague it could apply to anything' its hard to convince them that the sky isnt falling.



Its not people think that, its a fact! Even long serving barristers, judges, solicitors and professors of law are baffled by it! There is no way that it can be defined as precise as even our government can not yet say what is or is not legal under sections 62-67. There is no case law to support this act. nor have any parameters been set by the legislators themselves.
 
It seems that all sides are now awaiting the first court case in order to try and get some clarity. Btw, if your wondering I am a qualified solicitor so I do know what I am talking about.


I read the 'defenses' clauses, and it certainly appears that this is pretzel logic... the law won't apply if the hitting, etc. is pornogrpahic but consensual, unless it is deemed to be outside the scope of consensual?  WTF?



masterketch -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/11/2008 8:52:51 AM)

I know this law seems dumb and in many ways thats true, however, laws like this serve two purposes.

-First: Any event or law that would gather the attention of the public can and is often used for simple political purposes such as distraction or status building. 
    Exp 1. If you are familiar with the ban on gay marrage in the U.S. you understand that for some time it blanketed the news media and created a huge controversy. Thats mean that people were paying attention to the gay marraige scandal while others political figures  embesled oil or tax money for oersonal use.
   Exp 2. Other political figures can help build their carree on controversy like the banning of photos containing abusive content, which is a seemingly trivial thing.

Second: Laws that broaden the ability for legal prosicution are made to better prosicute those who are hard to convict. Meaning that if a man is wrongly abusing his wife and they can't prove it even if they got photos just because the man says its a lifestyle choice and the wife is too scard to ask for help.
    However laws like these should always come with a warning to those who enforce it that they should show discretion and not to prosicute those who are not doing anything wrong.



BrigandDoom -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/11/2008 9:53:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrigandDoom

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

I just love how they make it vague and such.
Its not.

The term 'serious injury' has a very percice legal meaning. Its linked to the difrence between ABH and GBH. However, since this meaning is defined elsewhere in the law, and not in the CJIA itself, people just assume that it is vague.

But as you said, the whole thing has already been debated to death. If nobody listened then, its unlikely anyone will listen now. Once people buy into the notion of 'the law is so vague it could apply to anything' its hard to convince them that the sky isnt falling.



Its not people think that, its a fact! Even long serving barristers, judges, solicitors and professors of law are baffled by it! There is no way that it can be defined as precise as even our government can not yet say what is or is not legal under sections 62-67. There is no case law to support this act. nor have any parameters been set by the legislators themselves.
 
It seems that all sides are now awaiting the first court case in order to try and get some clarity. Btw, if your wondering I am a qualified solicitor so I do know what I am talking about.


I read the 'defenses' clauses, and it certainly appears that this is pretzel logic... the law won't apply if the hitting, etc. is pornogrpahic but consensual, unless it is deemed to be outside the scope of consensual?  WTF?


The wording is so ambiguous and vague no-one can actually define what the parameters are. You can almost gurantee that the first peson prosecuted under this new act will have lergal aid and will not get a good defence as a result. There will be appeals, judicial reviews and undoubtly the ECHR will end up getting involved. All of this over another knee jerk law introduced by a government tjhat worries about political spin more than it does about governing consensually.



Backdooruk -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 2:07:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

I just love how they make it vague and such.
Its not.

The term 'serious injury' has a very percice legal meaning.


Any precise legal meaning is lost by the qualifier "Any pictures which appear to show acts threatening ". How can something 'threatening' an injury have any precision when it comes to the degree of injury it threatens?

That is the issue that has legal minds confused.

- Chris



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 7:10:30 AM)

Hummm? Thats odd, cause the law as passed had all of its 'or appears to' clauses removed. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63

Or are you complaining about the wording used in the original drafting? http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400 If so it seems strange that your complaining about the wording of something that WASENT pased into law.

You did read the law? Right? Or did you just read some blog or journal that was on about a panic atack how 'the law is poorly worded' and are just reciting talking points?



Backdooruk -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 8:15:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger
Thats odd, cause the law as passed had all of its 'or appears to' clauses removed.


The bill was amended several times as it went through its various stages. Substantially the meaning in this regard hasn't changed: "or is likely to result," is still an unknown test of an image just as much as ‘threatens’ is.

If you think the act as it stands is clear, perhaps you can tell me if a picture of someone holding a knife to genitals is likely to be covered by the law or not? How about a picture of a knife being inserted it into a vagina? Where is the line of "is likely to result," drawn exactly?

- Chris



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 8:47:07 AM)

Untested and unknown? Guess that means Moriarty v Brookes, JCC  v Eisenhower, DPP v Smith, R v Sanders, R v Martin, R v Sullivan, R v Mowatt, R v Savage, R v Wilson, R v Aitken  and probably most importantly R v Brown all never happened.

But to address yoru question, the knife held to the genetals probably wouldent even be ABH. See DPP v Smith.

As for the insertion, that depends on the insertion. If its just dildo like thats likely to just be ABH. But if theirs a knife stuck in and arterial blood is gushing out of the wound, thats probably GBH. Though I do know kinksters who do knife insertion, I dont know anyone who does knife insertion by ~stabbing~ it in. And frankly, I would be a bit worried by anyone trying to justify an action like that with 'how dare you judge my kink'.





TheHungryTiger -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 8:53:03 AM)

Ya know ..... just out of curiosity .....

Maybee you are just using a difrent meaning of 'poorly worded' than I am. Could you give me an example of a law that you think is NOT poorly worded? This can be any law writen at any time, in any country or nation, on any tipic.

The laws regaring cattle inoculations dosent give exacting detaled definitions of 'livestock'. So does this mean that those laws might be used againt people practicing ponygirl kink?



BrigandDoom -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 1:26:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

Ya know ..... just out of curiosity .....

Maybee you are just using a difrent meaning of 'poorly worded' than I am. Could you give me an example of a law that you think is NOT poorly worded? This can be any law writen at any time, in any country or nation, on any tipic.

The laws regaring cattle inoculations dosent give exacting detaled definitions of 'livestock'. So does this mean that those laws might be used againt people practicing ponygirl kink?



I will dig out a few exams for you, but your livestock arguement would only work if there was not already a legal definition of livestock in place. This in US law I would suggest probably does exist, I would have to consult a arigricultural specialist solicitor in the UK to get a full legal definition.

In UK law, if there is no case law already in place to support a new act, then the legislators are supposed to produce a finite set of parameters. We had those clearly defined under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. something that sections 62 - 67 of the CJIA 2008 does not. What the police may consider illegal, a court may disagree with. We have already had a meeting with the local sexual offences unit and looked at a set of photo's provided by a third party. Some of the photo's icluded were judged legal under the OPA 1959 and are thus still legal, but of the 10 randomly included, 8 were selected by the police as now illegal! When it was pointed out that they were not illegal, then even the police were surprised.

Thus the law is obviously vague as the people who are supposed to be investigating alleged offences are completely in the dark to what is and is not illegal? The law is deliberately made vague in theory to make convictions easier, in this case it'll prove otherwise.



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 2:53:13 PM)

quote:

I will dig out a few exams for you, but ....
By all means, please post where in the law the word 'livestock' is given an exact definition. ;-)

I will be waiting



BrigandDoom -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 5:28:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

I will dig out a few exams for you, but ....
By all means, please post where in the law the word 'livestock' is given an exact definition. ;-)

I will be waiting



You'll be waiting a long time for anything livestock, not my field and I'm not acquainted with anyone who is. As there is a lot of EU related legislation to cover I have kept well away from it, the same with most corpoerate legal problems.



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/12/2008 5:36:52 PM)

Sp you are just going to assume that the law is not poorly worded, even though you havent read the law nor looked into it at all?



Backdooruk -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/13/2008 12:56:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger
Untested and unknown? Guess that means Moriarty v Brookes, JCC  v Eisenhower, DPP v Smith, R v Sanders, R v Martin, R v Sullivan, R v Mowatt, R v Savage, R v Wilson, R v Aitken  and probably most importantly R v Brown all never happened.

But to address yoru question, the knife held to the genetals probably wouldent even be ABH. See DPP v Smith


You are missing the point, perhaps deliberately. It has nothing to do with any of those judgments because it not a case of proving that an injury is serious (for which a medical evidence could be provided) it’s about trying to decide what situations are ‘likely to result’ in such a injury if they were real etc. There is no precedence covering what is ‘likely to result’ in a picture.

And your assessment that a knife to the genitals won’t be covered by this law make my point: The guidance notes issued during both the consultation stage and at various versions of the bill as it made it’s way through parliament make it clear that it’s exactly the type of threatening picture that the government were trying to target by this act: "this could include the insertion of sharp objects" (and in UK law the intent of the bill is taken in to account when coming to judgments based on new laws). If you’d have followed the progress of this legislation over the past few years you would have known this already.

The worrying thing of course is it’s not the courts or a jury who have to make this decision, it’s the police (if you know about operation ORE you’ll understand the concern on that) and the Internet watch foundation (cleanfeed is now mandatory for all UK ISPs). 

In addition the government are resisting issuing guidelines about images despite ongoing pressure from the likes of backlash and the sexual freedom coalition. In parallel with section 28 in the ‘80s and ‘90s there is also the issue of chilling, with major UK BDSM websites already curtailing the pictures that can be shown in advance of this law coming into force.

- Chris



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Ramifications of CJIA being passed (6/13/2008 7:32:23 AM)

quote:

If you’d have followed the progress of this legislation over the past few years you would have known this already.
The old 'aithest in the foxhole' argument ..... I disagree with you, theirfore the only posiable way I coudl disagree is if I am uninformed. Reminds me of missionaries knocking on my door. I dont believe in jesus, but thats obviously cause I have never heard the news I would believe. If I just hear the news. They are confused that I have heard of jesus and I have read the bible yet I still disagree with them. Just like with this argument I have heard of Longhurst and I have read the law yet I still disagree.

The ol 'the law is badly worded' argument gets pulled out for anythign and everything. The CDA, the CPPA, COPA, CIPA, the PROTECT Act, the CCEA. Every single time the talking points are the same. 'The law is badily worded'. Even just this past month in US V Williams the suporeme court over here spicicifily said that a law was NOT overly broad, and the kneejerk reaction by the kink comunity was 'Oh no, this law is overly broad and badily worded'

There is only so many times I can hear the sky is falling. Operation Spanner was supose to be the end of bdsm as we know it. Why we were just hours away from having all kinksters being rounded up and sent off to fenced in reeducation camps ..... 20 years latter and how many people have been charged under this? How many have been tried? How many have been sent to prision? ..... The number obviosly has to be in the thousands? Right? After all, those evil christians who control all government and control all media are out to get us all? Why it must be in the tens of thousands. why since the law is so badily worded it could be used againt stuff like Madonas 'justify my love' video. With a law this baddly worded, the number of people proscuted under it might even be hundreds of thousands.

It would go a long way toward convincing me that 'its porly worded' is a valid argument if someone coudl point out to me *ANY* law that is not poorly worded. Just one. I joke about the law regarding cattle inoculations being 'porly worded' but it dosent have to be that topic. ANY law? Anything? Just one? It can be any law on any topic from any point in all of human history by any civicilation or government? Just show me a law, any law, that is not poorly worded.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125