New Porn rules

[Getmessy]

I was just wondering if anyone knows how if any the new Porn rules affects us wammers.

[Miss T]

Err, same way they affect everyone else!


That is if you have a liking for anything from innocuous Bettie Page type bondage upwards and have it stored on your computer you could be committing an offence. Cant really say anymore than that, I dont know how it will be enforced, the police dont know either....

For example (and for obvious reasons I will not post the pic on this site) if you follow this link you will see a pic of Bettie that could be illegal

Mods please feel free to remove if I have overstepped the mark

[Getmessy]

Oh right thanks Miss T its just i heard that it was anything disgusting and disturbing and W.A.M. can be that sometimes so hopefully it won't ruin our fun.

[BillShipton]

No, I think it has to be deemed harmful and non-consensual but it is such a grey area that the police are either gonna be working 24 hours a day or very little will happen. I suspect (but only suspect) it will be little different from the rules that companies like Mastercard are already enforcing. I really don't think that police manpower is sufficient for everyone to suddenly be raided. But members of sites dedicated to serous violence and pain might....

[Pacman]

The 'extreme' portion in the law is defined as follows

(7)
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a)
an act which threatens a person's life,
(b)
an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c)
an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d)
a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

So I think most WAM is safe

Anyone interested can read the full law at http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... ic+General)&title=criminal+justice&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=3479635&ActiveTextDocId=3479721&filesize=31399

[Mike Nomic]

The 'extreme' portion in the law is defined as follows

(7)
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
...
(d)
a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

Do you think they added that last bit just so that 'Muffin the Mule' was still OK?

Mike.

[Richard]

Thanks for that link pacman, I was beginning to worry about the pictures of my session with Mouse, she looked about 12years old in her schoolgirl outfit!

What do you think Miss T? Are they OK?

[BillShipton]

Sorry, I'm not Miss T but I reckon they are fine. She is dressed up to look young but no way looks underage. She is clearly playing a part. And no animals died.

[se609]

some more information here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/

[Miss T]

No problem Rich, those pics are fine.... just good clean messy fun ....she was good wasnt she



For those who are wondering and reading thinking whats all the fuss about the problem is in interpretation & the view of consent.

At present the law says you cannot consent to being injured so in a consensual spanking/caning or BDSM scene you could all foul of the new regs if a pic is taken showing more than slight markings to the body. That could happen easily.... that said, the laws prohibiting that existed already and have been used agressively - think the Spanner Case.

Interpretation - to me the link I gave you showed a pretty inoffensive image. However were I to describe it.... a pic where the victim appears scared, she is tied, gagged with rope around her neck... now sounds more extreme doesnt it. ....

By using the word extreme most people assume it is going after exactly that, but as with many recent laws it is too broad and the things it really should be dealing with were illegal already anyway!

This is why Ben Westwood and many others have been protesting:

Erotic photographer Ben Westwood, Vivienne Westwood's son, staged a protest featuring bound-and-gagged models in fetish clothing at the House of Commons yesterday. Westwood was taking a stand against the impending Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008, which outlaws extreme pornography and goes into effect January 1. Under the law anyone caught with his 2005 book F**k Fashion: The Erotic Photography of Ben Westwood could face a jail sentence of up to three years.

Anyway, we will wait and see... I suspect as with many of these things what happens will depend on where you live. Bill is correct however, its not really going to be much different from the Visa regs we have to deal with already.

ps; whilst writing this a link to the register was posted, its excellent basically says everything I was trying to say!!

[BillShipton]

I hasten to point out that I do think the new laws are bloody stupid, totally unpoliceable and unfair on people who enjoy that sort of thing quite consentually.

[andy250]

Rich your sessions are becoming so wild you may have to leave the country.

regards

Andy

[Richard]

Thanks Miss T and Bill (difficult to tell you apart ) for your reassurances; I'll sleep more soundly tonight.

[Richard]

Rich your sessions are becoming so wild you may have to leave the country.

regards

Andy

You trying to get rid of me? - No chance!!

[eden]

I hasten to point out that I do think the new laws are bloody stupid, totally unpoliceable and unfair on people who enjoy that sort of thing quite consentually.

Agreed. This pisses me off to no end. Bah, grr, aargh.