RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (Full Version)

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



Message

TheHungryTiger -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 9:03:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JustDarkness

when I read the pdf (and perhaps I misunderstood)...the "normal" porn will not be in danger.

It wont.

If it helps, try thinking of this law comparing it to the American laws of the 'Bradey Bill' or "Lacyes bill'. They all take something that was already against the law in the first place and makes it ~more~ againt the law. From a law enforcement stance this changes absoutly nothing and preserves the status quo. Its just a PR stunt. But it does cause the paranoid to freak out over what they claim as 'oppression'.

The Bradey Bill made it againt the law to shoot at a police officer using teflon coated bullets. But shooting at police officers was already againt the law in the first place. So the law dosent change anything. But in the aftermath of Bill Braddy getting shot the politicans wanted to look like they were doing something. But as soon as this happened the nutcases on the far right start screaming 'dear god, the government is destroying the second adnment.'

Lacies law made it againt the law to murder pregnat women. But murdering ANY woman was already againt the law in the first place. So the law changes nothing. But int he wake of the Lacy Peterson murder the politiciasns wanted to look as if they were 'doing something' while still not upsetting the status quo. And the instant it passed the far left-wing nutjobs start screaming that the government is going to use this to ban all abortions and take away a womans right to choose.

So now we have what can arguabaly be called 'Longhursts law'. Snuff films were already againt the law under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959. So they are taking it and making it MORE iligeal. The Obscene Publications Act of 1959 was just as 'vague and overly broad' as any law but it wasent used as a sneeky backdoor way for the uptight prudes in government to break into peoples bedrooms and force them to have sex in the missionary position. Now if the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 didnt bring all kink as we know it to a screaching halt, I doubr that the CIJB (that has actualy a smaller scope) is goign to be the doom of us all.

Its a snuff porn law. Nothing else. Oh sure you can comb through the bill and pick out indvidual words or phrases that *COULD* be misinterpted as being abotu kink. That is true of any law. (See my above post about how you could misinterpte cattle inoculation laws as being abotu ponygirl). But Im not egotistical enough to think that everythign the government does is abotu little ol me.



AhuvahXimena -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 10:58:09 AM)

@TheHungryTiger  Lacies Law was directed at making it a crime to murder unborn children...it was not for the females themselves...the idea was that if you kill a pregnant women, you have taken two lives and can therefore be criminally punished for both deaths.

The new Uk laws in themselves are a way of winning votes for the politicians, but someone who has a grudge or a fanatic or someone who wants power will most likely find a way to use them against people.

Ahuvah.



obsession25 -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 11:12:15 AM)

lol i'm with what aneirin is saying I've been prosecuted not for anything sexually but i would hate to stand in the dock on a sex charge, you have to fight for your life in court n its up to u to convince the jury unless you've got one shit hot barrister solicitor legal team, you sweat in that dock and prosecutors are bloody good at twisting your words and blanking your mind just because i have been equited once all down to my own brains i would not want to try it again and what aneirin is saying is spot on if the law is not defined then it leaves it in a grey area and up to a jury who will probably be vanilla and find most of bdsm porn disgusting. So ok you must be in possession and post writer has gave a good in-sight into how to avoid prosecution but the gov have mad a decision and that is if your remotely perverted we will not tolerate it, that England. So once they have set the extreme law in stone defined or not they can change it over night with out notice, your local police may bored track your IP which is not prosecutable proof but is enough to kick off Ur door I'd stick to Co.uk sites to be honest.



piratecommander -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 11:12:30 AM)

As I dont have ANY images that I believe should invite invite the attention of her brittanic majesty's staff , I will find great amusement if ever called to defend my belief that I do not.

So for that reason and with reference to the concept of paranoia as you put it in this context, I shall be continuing to research my interests as I see fit. I shall remain fully aware of the opressive nature of MOST of Liz's laws without paranoia because MOST of their oppression affects MOST of us ....... so theres no way I can accept that I am in some way special if I end up being selected to meet her sycophants.

(theres a pun here on "her majestys pleasure" somewhere but I'm not doing that one in case it still constitutes "treason")

(I would not fear it , but I have a rather important appointment to make which is far more important than the "royalty")

(I guess that means I'm off the free kebab list then , eh?)

Pirate



delphius1 -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 4:57:51 PM)

For those that think the extreme porn law could never be used against more mainsteam law....

Here's a scenario for you. If theres some porn that involves the use of huge toys being forced roughly into a person's anus or vagina, or even a large human penis, tell me that that you'll never ever get 12 people on a jury that think such an act would cause severe injury and is obscene. The onus would be on the defence to argue the points and they would have to provide pretty convincing evidence from expert witnesses to prove that such an act would not cause severe injury (whatever severe injury is: it's never been legally defined AFAIK) and overturn the prejudices of the members of the jury.

You might be pretty confident of winning such a case in a cosmopolitan city, but less confident in a more conservative rural area. If it suited the CPS, then the extreme porn law as it stands is vague enough to be bent to cover other sexually explicit scenarios. For instance the "statanic sluts" that came to prominence recently thanks to Messers Brand and Ross had some gothic pics on their website that could easily be argued would be illegal to own under the new law, the essential items being pretty sexy naked ladies, knives, fatal wounds and lots of blood.





TheHungryTiger -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 5:14:44 PM)

quote:

(whatever severe injury is: it's never been legally defined AFAIK)
Then maybe you should actually read up on british case law regarding the difference between Assault / Actualy Bobily Harm / Grievous Bodily Harm. Wikipedia has good articles on each so that would be a nice place to start.

But hey, why base your opinion on facts when its just so much more fun to run around sprouting off 'Well, *I* have never seen a definition for 'serious injury' so the law must be vague and overy broad.' ..... And we are all supose to believe YOU about what may or may not happen in a courtroom? Shesh



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 5:33:40 PM)

Ya know, I have droped this chalange before but I feel now would be a good time to bring it back up .....

Can anyone name *ANY* law that is not 'vague and overly broad'? Not just laws regarding kink but any law. Not just UK law either. And not just current law ..... ANY law from any nation in all of recorded history. Any law at all that you cant throw 'vague and overly broad' againt?

This 'vague and overly broad' argument begins to get anoying after about the 5,000th time I see it used. Child porn law? Vague and only broad. The way they define 'child' is so unclear that it MIGHT get used againt AB/DL. Law againt rape? Vage and overly broad. The way they define 'atack' is so unclear that it MIGHT get used againt forcefetishists. Law againt prostitution? Vage and overly broad. The way they define 'give item of value' is so unclear that someone might get thrown in jail if his wife gives him a blowjob after he brings home flowers.

Im reminded of the recent case in Idho where the government was trying to write a law againt sexual exploitition of children and they caled in an expert from the ACLU to help them draft the law. As soon as the ACLU was done writing the law for them and the politicians passed it they get sued by the ACLU claiming the law is vague and overy broad.

Politicians spend YEARS writing laws. Debaring them back and forth. Going through revision after revision after revision. If anything at all is left unclear then some defence atourny will use it to get their cliant off on a techinality. So laws are about the MOST well definded things you could ever imagine.



Vendaval -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 8:28:29 PM)

Several laws in the Vehicle Code are very specific -

"(d) (1) ) A person ( )2 shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt. This paragraph does not apply to the operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, when the taxicab is driven on a city street and is engaged in the transportation of a fare-paying passenger. The safety belt requirement established by this paragraph is the minimum safety standard applicable to employees being transported in a motor vehicle. This paragraph does not preempt ( )1 more stringent or restrictive standards imposed by the Labor Code or ( )3 another state or federal regulation regarding the transportation of employees in a motor vehicle."

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27315.htm

"Registration Required
4000.  (1) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly, unless it is registered and the appropriate fees have been paid under this code or registered under the permanent trailer identification program, except that an off-highway motor vehicle which displays an identification plate or device issued by the department pursuant to Section 38010 may be driven, moved, or left standing in an offstreet public parking facility without being registered or paying registration fees."

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03/vc4000.htm






TheHungryTiger -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/7/2009 9:43:24 PM)

But they never actually define 'moter vehicle' now do they? This law is so vage and overly broad that it might apply to people using a motorized wheelchear ..... clearly whoever wrote this law is just bigitoed toward those who are difrently-abled. The whole thign was writen that way on purpose in order to let politicians who hate the handicaped harass and destroy the lives of anyone they dont like.

And what about that whole 'properly restrained by a safety belt' thing? There is no question that a motercicle is a moterized vehical and is operated on highways. But motercicles dont even have seatbelts. All it would take is for one officer to make a trafic stop of as motercicle rider and charge him with failure to wear a seatbelt. The trial would drag on and on and on for years costing thousands of dollars. Nobody would want to take the risk of being that test case so people would stop riding motercicles. Clearly this law was by someone who thinks motercycles are 'dangerous' and dosent want anyone anywhere to ride a motercicle. Arew we just doing to sit by and do nothing while politicians take away our freedom to ride a motercycle?



RCdc -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 6:39:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: delphius1

For those that think the extreme porn law could never be used against more mainsteam law....

Here's a scenario for you. If theres some porn that involves the use of huge toys being forced roughly into a person's anus or vagina, or even a large human penis, tell me that that you'll never ever get 12 people on a jury that think such an act would cause severe injury and is obscene. The onus would be on the defence to argue the points and they would have to provide pretty convincing evidence from expert witnesses to prove that such an act would not cause severe injury (whatever severe injury is: it's never been legally defined AFAIK) and overturn the prejudices of the members of the jury.

You might be pretty confident of winning such a case in a cosmopolitan city, but less confident in a more conservative rural area. If it suited the CPS, then the extreme porn law as it stands is vague enough to be bent to cover other sexually explicit scenarios. For instance the "statanic sluts" that came to prominence recently thanks to Messers Brand and Ross had some gothic pics on their website that could easily be argued would be illegal to own under the new law, the essential items being pretty sexy naked ladies, knives, fatal wounds and lots of blood.


There is a flaw in your logic here.  People like you and I might be on that jury.  We are here aren't we?  We could be there too.  You act like people are completely sheltered.  On the whole, people have common sense.  Unless you are suggesting that you do not?
 
the.dark.



AhuvahXimena -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 8:23:44 AM)

A person is smart...people are stupid....

As a single being or in small numbers we have intelligence...after a certain number we act like sheep and play follow the one in front.



colouredin -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 8:43:37 AM)

does that mean that if a person is on the jury and doesnt agree they wont speak up?



dirtyboykink -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 9:19:27 AM)

hmmmm I've been be prosecuted and arrested a few times nothing to do with sex crimes but if the law is vague then there is a good possibility theres a reason for that, the courts dont mess around standing trial is not an easy thing no matter how brave you are, at a guess I'd say you'd be 1 in ten million to get a none vanilla jury and even then its how the prosecutor presents the case to them.



colouredin -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 9:26:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dirtyboykink

at a guess I'd say you'd be 1 in ten million to get a none vanilla jury and even then its how the prosecutor presents the case to them.


1 in 10 million chance there would be a 'non vanilla' member on the jury? I live in a very small town and i am aware of at least 5 people activly involved in the scene, we aint so rare as we like to make out



RCdc -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 10:33:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin

quote:

ORIGINAL: dirtyboykink

at a guess I'd say you'd be 1 in ten million to get a none vanilla jury and even then its how the prosecutor presents the case to them.


1 in 10 million chance there would be a 'non vanilla' member on the jury? I live in a very small town and i am aware of at least 5 people activly involved in the scene, we aint so rare as we like to make out



You are just as likely to get someone with some kind of kink or fetish as you are a person who is poor at statistics and population per head.[8|]
 
 
the.dark.



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 11:47:22 AM)

quote:

There is a flaw in your logic here. People like you and I might be on that jury. We are here aren't we? We could be there too. You act like people are completely sheltered. On the whole, people have common sense. Unless you are suggesting that you do not?

the.dark.
Actually I think there is a bigger flaw in the logic than even that. The premise is that juries DO vote their conscious. This isn't the case. Juries are instructed, nigh well commanded, to go by the exacting letter of the law. Think the law doesn't apply in this case? You are told to keep your opinions to yourself and just follow the letter of the law. Think that the law is unjust and shouldn't even be a law in the first place? You are told to keep your mouth shut and just follow instructions. Think the defendant is a filthy sinner and deserves to fry? Shut up, keep your head down, do what your told.

Consider the recent trial of Paul Little. Members of the jury, including the forman, aproached him after the vertic and personaly apologized to him (One jurer even cried and gave him a hug). They had wanted to aquit, but the exacting letter of the law over the phrase 'Reasonably foreseeable' ment they couldent.

To apply to the CIJB, if someone was on the jury for a beastiality porn trial and that person thought that beastility wasent that big a deal, they could NOT vote their concious and aquit. The law is the law is the law. The law says no beastiality porn period. Likewise if someone on the jury for this hypethitical (and damn neart imposible that it is ever going to happen) 'giant dildo' trial thought the defend was a filthy sinner and desereves to fry, they could NOT vote their concious and convict. The law is the law is the law. Regulations on GBH are quite clear that such is not 'serious injury'.

Thius is why there is an ever growing movement within the kinkster comunity to suport the Fully Informed Jury Association and the work they do on education people on the ability of jury nullification. http://www.fija.org/ This notion that a jury can through the book at someone just because everyone on the jury is an uptight prude who hates sex is just plain hogwash. Jurries cant vote their conscious. And if juries could vote their conscious you are stasticly more likely to have a jury full of 'what they do in the privacy of their bedroom isnt the government business' than the probability of having 12 out of 12 all be uptight prudes who will throw someone in jail for life because they dared to have sex not in the misionary position.

I strongly encourage people to lean more about the FIJA and jurry nulification and to spread the information to as many people as you can.



TheHungryTiger -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 11:57:24 AM)

quote:

1 in 10 million chance there would be a 'non vanilla' member on the jury? I live in a very small town and i am aware of at least 5 people activly involved in the scene, we aint so rare as we like to make out
I call it the 'mighty ducks syndrome'. People love to root for the underdog who is fighting bravely against impossible odds. So its natural for people to over exegerate the size of the 'oppressor' and under exegerate the size of the 'oppresed'.



Vendaval -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/8/2009 4:53:20 PM)

Go back and click on the link provided and read the Vehicle Code, everything is defined.



thetammyjo -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/9/2009 8:36:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

The law as it is is designed to be vague, just like it has always been, there being open to interpretation by whoever wants to prosecute an offender. The familiar wavy line that leaves artists of all kinds scared of being themselves.

As I see it with this new law, before long, someone wil be 'got', publicised and prosecuted in a hail of media coverage and rabble roused public oppinion as a warning, an example made just to show the law makers have responded to the minority. After that, I expect it will die down and become just another law we are all guilty of breaking like so many other laws we know nothing or very little about, until such a time another example needs to be made.

Why do we elect these fools , they don't act for us, but against?



Plus if it's vague and you scare folks they will simply stop doing things and you'll not have to go after them.

If you allow yourself to be scared into denying yourself that is.

I don't recommend it myself. While it may keep you out of the courts and jail I think it might hurt your soul your very essence and I know which I value more.



DanniPandemos -> RE: Uk Extreme Porn Law comes into force 26th Jan (1/11/2009 12:28:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
Vague laws have but one purpose, the ability to be manipulated in any direction a prosecutor sees fit, the use of anti terror legislation to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks, was an apalling misuse of power, and a warning of how effective vague laws can be.


Firstly, with regard to Iceland, the legislation used was the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Anti-terror measures are only part the act and many of the measures are applicable to a wide variety of crimes. The orders were issued under a clause that allows assets to be frozen if the treasury believes the people they belong to are likely to take action detrimental to the economy. It's not a specifically anti-terrorist measure.

Of course, it's better headlines for the media to say that 'anti-terror legislation' was used, rather than the more prosaic (and accurate) 'security legislation'.

While it's true to say that vague laws can be manipulated by prosecutors, the flip side is that they also give judges and juries the flexibility to apply common sense in reaching a verdict and also allow for changing attitudes over time. In turn, this puts pressure on prosecutors to go for the open and shut cases, rather than risk prosecutions where there's a significant possibility that a jury could find in favour of the defendants.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02