UK to ban "extreme" pornography

[Lunar]

To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law banning "extreme" pornography gives the Government unprecedented powers to police bedrooms (and basements).

Critics, including at least two lords, say that legislation coming into force next month forbidding the possession of "an extreme pornographic image" will criminalise thousands of previously law-abiding people who have a harmless taste for unconventional sex.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force on 26 January and makes owning offending pictures a criminal offence punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. An image is deemed to be extreme if it "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays in any way an act which threatens a person's life, or which results or appears likely to result in serious injury to someone's genitals or breasts.

The law was passed earlier this year following a mother's emotive campaign after her daughter was killed by a man who claimed he was addicted to violent porn.

Opponents have no problems with two provisions banning images of bestiality or necrophilia - both of which are already illegal to do - but fear that the other definitions are so vaguely worded that even images of consenting adults engaging in fictional violence will now be outlawed, giving Britain the toughest anti-porn laws in Europe.

Members of Britain's BDSM (bondage, domination and sado-masochism) community, as well as those in the gothic and alternative scenes, complain that they are being unfairly targeted. "I firmly agree that images of non-consensual activities which involve violence should be criminalised but this is a badly worded law that risks criminalising thousands of ordinary people," said Claire Lewis, a 35-year-old disabled rights activist from Manchester who has set up the Consenting Adult Action Network (Caan). "The Government seems to be convinced that if people like us look at pictures for too long we'll end up turning into abusers. That's outrageous."

Caan campaigners plan to burn their pornography collections outside Parliament. A second group, Backlash, is hiring lawyers from the leading human rights firm Bindmans to contest cases when they come to court.

Myles Jackman, Backlash's legal adviser, said: "Ultimately it will be up to a magistrate and a jury to decide what constitutes extreme pornography but the wording is so impossibly vague it could constitute anything. Take the phrase 'life-threatening'. There is, I understand, a genre of porn known as 'smoking pornography' which you could argue combines pornography with a potentially life threatening act."

Its supporters include the photographer Ben Westwood, eldest son of the fashion designer Vivienne. He fears some of his pictures, which often show images of people bound and gagged, could be outlawed in the new year. "I simply don't believe it is the Government's business to interfere in people's sexuality," he said. "What particularly offends me is that these laws were brought in without any consultation whatsoever with the people they affect. That is not a democracy."

The outlawing of extreme porn won the backing of the Home Office, under the former Home Secretary David Blunkett, after a three-year campaign by Liz Longhurst. Her daughter, Jane, was strangled by Graham Coutts in 2003. During his trial, Coutts said he had a fixation with asphyxiation porn and necrophilia. A petition started by Mrs Longhurst to outlaw violent pornography garnered 50,000 signatures.

The Bill went through the Commons unchallenged and only in the House of Lords was there any significant opposition. Baroness Miller, the Liberal Democrat peer, argued that the legislation would justify the Government "walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something".

The law is a significant change in direction for policing pornography in Britain because it shifts the burden of guilt from those making the pornography to those viewing it.

Enthusiasts of gothic horror and burlesque shows - which often feature pseudo-violence such as fake knives and participants covered in mock blood, say they are concerned that their artistic creativity will be stifled.

There are also concerns about how the law will be policed. Caan has taken a dossier of images to three major police forces: not one could yet say which pictures would be deemed illegal. One month ahead of the legislation being enacted, the Association of Chief Police Officers has yet to draw up any guidelines on how it is to be policed.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Justice said the new law would only be used to target the most extreme cases. "The new offence only covers the possession of images, it does not limit private sexual behaviour," she said.

It is little consolation for Westwood who has vowed to continue his erotic photography regardless: "I'm not going to stop what I do and nor should anyone else. There are already laws in place to stop people harming each other."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/british-bill-to-ban-extre_n_154343.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh goodie, only real violence like the kind in Iraq, is allowed by the British government.

[Lunar]

Well, I obviously oppose the law.

But the argument, to play the devil's advocate, I imagine, is that allowing fetish porn which depicts very illegal acts encourages/entrenches those attitudes which could lead to people who have a strong association betweens illegal violence and sexual urges to break the law in a very bad way. 

In the United States we don't allow porn where an >18 year old actress pretends to be <18.   It's basically the same thing.

[Lief 🗽]

Disgusting fascism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Disgusting fascism.

[Lunar]

Disgusting fascism.

because I like to be a devil's advocate against things I support:

Should t he U.S. allow pretend child pornography?

And if not, what distinguishes pornography depicting statutory rape (sex with someone pretending to be <18 yrs old), which is illegal in the United States, and someone pretending to engage in bestiality or necrophilia?

Can someone defend both laws?  It's a bit of a nuanced subject, especially when we think about net consequences rather than simply individual freedoms.  I mean, I obviously support freeodm here, but I think it's insanely insane to think of this as a clear-cut issue

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd always assumed that this sort of thing was illegal anyway. Perverts shouldn't worry though; from the way the legislation is written (the bits quoted anyway) only a handful of people a year are likely to fall afoul of the new law. You'd have to be into some seriously sick stuff to get into trouble and if you're into that sort of thing you probably need mental help anyway.

[Scam of God]

Absolutely nonsensical, though I suspect that this is another example of the Anglican Church throwing its weight around in the political sphere again; if I recall correctly, they tried something similar in the early 1990's with imports of the Hustler magazine.

[Bono]

Absolutely nonsensical, though I suspect that this is another example of the Anglican Church throwing its weight around in the political sphere again; if I recall correctly, they tried something similar in the early 1990's with imports of the Hustler magazine.

I'm sure their nonexistent weight was very influential in this legislation.

[Scam of God]

Absolutely nonsensical, though I suspect that this is another example of the Anglican Church throwing its weight around in the political sphere again; if I recall correctly, they tried something similar in the early 1990's with imports of the Hustler magazine.

I'm sure their nonexistent weight was very influential in this legislation.

Are you joking? Most of the Christian Democratic wing of Labour are more beholden to the Church than to Labour proper.

[Yamor]

I doubt very much the church has anything to do with it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Absolutely nonsensical, though I suspect that this is another example of the Anglican Church throwing its weight around in the political sphere again; if I recall correctly, they tried something similar in the early 1990's with imports of the Hustler magazine.

I'm sure their nonexistent weight was very influential in this legislation.

Are you joking? Most of the Christian Democratic wing of Labour are more beholden to the Church than to Labour proper.

The Church has no power at all in Britain (or indeed, anywhere in Western Europe), and hasn't had any for a long time.

Necrophilia and bestiality are banned. I don't see anything objectionable about this.

[Lunar]

Will anyone who decries this as fascism answer Why is pornography depicting pretend-childporn illegal in the U.S.?

I disagree with the British law, obv, but let's articulate our views a little more peeps

[A18]

Will anyone who decries this as fascism answer Why is pornography depicting pretend-childporn illegal in the U.S.?

If I remember correctly, the situation is a little more nuanced. If x person sells materials that he claims are genuine child pornography, he engages in criminal activity even if what he's selling is in fact artificial. But if he's upfront about its being artificial, no problem arises.

Sufficient justification for this can be found in the difficulty of proving whether any given materials are "genuine" or "fake" child porn.

[Lunar]

Will anyone who decries this as fascism answer Why is pornography depicting pretend-childporn illegal in the U.S.?

If I remember correctly, the situation is a little more nuanced. If x person sells materials that he claims are genuine child pornography, he engages in criminal activity even if what he's selling is in fact artificial. But if he's upfront about its being artificial, no problem arises.

Sufficient justification for this can be found in the difficulty of proving whether any given materials are "genuine" or "fake" child porn.

Really?  I assumed that you couldn't have fictional child porn in America either (someone falsely claiming to be <18).

You're saying it's basically the same as our drug laws -- what matters is what you think and not what you have.  If you think your M&M's are ecstasy tablets or are trying to sell flour as cocaine, it's the same as the actual drug.

[A18]

Possession of "fake" child pornography may only be prohibited, consistent with the First Amendment, if it is obscene. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 249–251 (2002). What can be, and has been, outlawed is the distribution of fake child pornography that is presented as genuine. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___ (2008). (For the precise statutory language, which is marginally broader than my summary, just see the Court's opinion in Williams.)

The bottom line is that (non-obscene) fake child porn remains legal to distribute, provided you do not misrepresent it as being genuine. And possession, too, is of course legal.

[Matt Damon™]

That reminds me never to visit/bring my laptop to the UK.

[opebo]

Possession of "fake" child pornography may only be prohibited, consistent with the First Amendment, if it is obscene. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 249–251 (2002). What can be, and has been, outlawed is the distribution of fake child pornography that is presented as genuine. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___ (2008). (For the precise statutory language, which is marginally broader than my summary, just see the Court's opinion in Williams.)

The bottom line is that (non-obscene) fake child porn remains legal to distribute, provided you do not misrepresent it as being genuine. And possession, too, is of course legal.

Isn't all pornography 'obscene', by definition?  I mean, what good is non-obscene pornography?  What would that even be?  Cinemax?

[A18]

Well, for purposes of American constitutional law, "obscene" is a term of art (much like "actual malice"). I don't know precisely how the standard is applied in concrete cases; but I'm sure mere nudity doesn't qualify a work as "obscene."

[The Mikado]

Absolutely nonsensical, though I suspect that this is another example of the Anglican Church throwing its weight around in the political sphere again; if I recall correctly, they tried something similar in the early 1990's with imports of the Hustler magazine.

I'm sure their nonexistent weight was very influential in this legislation.

Are you joking? Most of the Christian Democratic wing of Labour are more beholden to the Church than to Labour proper.

The Anglican Church?  Political weight?  Influence?  Maybe in Elizabeth I's reign, but certainly not in Elizabeth II.

[Lief 🗽]

Disgusting fascism.

because I like to be a devil's advocate against things I support:

Should t he U.S. allow pretend child pornography?

Of course, providing the actors are consenting adults.

[Earth]

It's very much a fũcked up situation in regards to UK legislation. Not only this ridiculous ban "extreme pornography", a vague phrase, but to others, such as the "Dangerous Dogs Act". The UK government can go fũck itself for presuming to speak in the name of decency by banning certain things.

[k-onmmunist]

Disgusting fascism.

And I'm in the country that passed it -_-