|
LadyEllen -> RE: Extreme porn law back in the news. (UK) (7/5/2010 5:38:00 AM)
|
There's also a heck of a lot of whining on account of not having read what is prohibited IMO.
Potentially, 6a might affect some - images of an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life, though it would take some pretty insane extrapolations, easily dismissed, to make that work in most instances. Of concern here would be asphyxiation images for instance - but only if intended to be pornographic (produced for the purpose of sexual arousal)
6c, an image of sexual interference with a human corpse and 6d an image of someone performing intercourse or oral sex with an animal......... I'd prefer to think might lie beyond our interest (?)
6b is the real bit that causes concern; images of an act that results in, appears to result in or is likely to result in serious injury to anus, breasts or genitals. The concern here is what amounts to "serious injury"? Clearly not all injury is "serious injury" and "serious injury" itself is ill defined here but to be found defined in the Offences Against The Person Act (OAPA) where it is used by the CPS to describe the level of injury for which Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) would be an appropriate charge.
From the Crown Prosecution website
55) Grievous bodily harm means serious bodily harm (Archbold 19-206). It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to serious harm include:
- injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function;
- injury which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;
- compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
- injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;
- injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
- psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury.
This clearly goes beyond anything "sane" or "safe" ("consent" is irrelevant here). And I'd suggest the "Risk Aware" types would, being aware of the results of more extreme play might avoid such outcomes.
But what we're dealing with here is not actions (which in themselves are offences and have long since been so) but images - publication of which has long since been an offence anyway, but more exactly possession of images of the above.
The question is not therefore whether one might be prosecuted for such action under this recent law - one ought to have been prosecuted on the law as it stood and still stands. The question is whether possession of images depicting such actions should be an offence.
E
|
|
|
|
