New Porn rules

[the bulber]

I wonder how many politicians, civil servants and judges will fall foul of the new laws.

Is it another knee jerk response from new labour to the tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime statement.

[Getmessy]

Thanks i was really worried for a minute then but that has cleared everything up.

[TottyMcGee]

The 'consultation process' that lead up to this law finally being passed was bittersweet comedy, as the blue paper listed the various opposition arguments before concluding along the lines of "but meh, let the judges figure it out or something, if we get bogged down with doing this properly it'll take too long and we'll lose the Daily Mail vote."

The problem of course is fatally broad parameters - it's all very well trotting out "within reason" and "artistic discretion" get-outs whenever a problem arises, but when making criminal legislation that will demand gaol time and a place on the sex offenders register for offenders you don't get the luxury of being so vague. The now notorious "get 'em all and let the courts sort them out" police drive against paedophiles netted a few genuine predators while falsely accusing scores of suspects who were subsequently found innocent, but too late to prevent them, their lives ruined and their every move hounded, from taking their own lives.

As for how it affects sploshers - probably quicksand scenes have the most to fear, but aside from that WAM is as tame as they come, we don't really do nasty. It might get plod looking your way in search of harder stuff, but unlikely when there're more likely groups available to check first.

[dalious]

I take it that this is a U.K law. I'm curious about this law now, anyone link the text of this law?

[Sidi]

When do you think they will stop making up new laws and enforce the ones we have already got?

You know, like catching proper criminals instead of just motorists and fetishists

[easy_as_]

I take it that this is a U.K law. I'm curious about this law now, anyone link the text of this law?

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme- ... images.pdf

I think this link works . . . but that is the new law in it's entirety.

Organisations such as Backlash and CAAN

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/

http://www.caan.org.uk/

have been actively campaigning and lobbying to get a more sensible interpretation of this law. In part it seems to have been a knee jerk reaction to high profile coverage in the media about the killer of Jane Longhurst, who was a fan of strangulation/hanging sites.

At an absurd conclusion, I should think this law could be applied to a lot of images already in the public domain legally. There is always going to be someone getting a kick out of something that is clearly presented in a different context, from news film footage to wildlife documentaries to classic works of art.

The Venus de Milo, a half naked Aphrodite, no arms, but no 'arm in that . . . . or is there ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo

It's a bit extreme, isn't ? Ignoring the marbles' pallor, it is clearly very life like sculpture of a woman with no arms.
Ok, originally it is supposed she did have arms but through the ravages of time they did not survive. Still, the work of antiquity is paraded as a fine piece art, as it should be.

When it was discovered in Greece in 1820, near the ruined town of Milo, was there a spate of gratuitous mutilations by one or more highly sexed men ( ? ) . . . . I think we might have been told by now and if we haven't then we should have been. I am not sure it has [ publicly gone on record as having ] inspired any such incidents since then either.

Surely, to make sense of this law then it has to be applied retrospectively across the board.

There must be other better examples in art . . . . Damien Hirst springs to mind . . . . . being an animal cut in half and preserved in formaldehyde can't imply any consent was given to be used in that way . . . .

. . . conversely, Professor Gunther von Hagens did obtain consent of the people he used in his Body Works exhibitions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,669680,00.html

The latter two examples have caused controversy but have ultimately been allowed to be displayed legally.

Is it just my perversity showing through or are there potentially a whole raft of double standards ?


easy

[eden]

As easy_as_ said, the backlash site gives a good explanation. I wish I could have done more about this.... I'm having awful thoughts about something stupid like a doctor seeing marks on my breasts and having Jon arrested or something.

easy_as... I don't think the double standard is really represented in art, personally. I see your point but I don't think personal relationships and activities compare with the doings of rich egomaniacs like Damien fucking Hirst. I think the double standard here is in the fact that the U.K. is doing fuck all to ensure peoples sexual safety in terms of sexual education, prostitution and trafficking, and instead is making bullshit, unenforcible laws like this one which interfere with regular peoples consensual love life.

Aaagh. Sorry. Rant over, for now!

[BillShipton]

It's always the small guys they go after. It is a far easier to target happy consenting couples or some poor person who happens to enjoy looking at pictures than go after anyone doing serious harm.

[wampony]

Well said Bill, thats why this country is falling apart.
Too many un-enforcable rules and then they go after all the wrong people (anyone who is an easy target like motorists and consenting adults), presumably because it is easier than catching the people doing serious crimes.
If the government want to do something about internet porn (instead of just looking at it) then they should do something about the sick people who put links to hardcore porn sites onto sites which kids are likely to use.
If you dont believe me try typing the name of any kids toy like Furby, Action Man, My Little Pony into a search engine and see how many adult sites are returned.
This is the kind of action that really angers me, they should leave the adult stuff for those who wish to find it and not try to force it onto young kids.

[mattbuck]

I disagree about the motorists thing. Motoring offences are serious because they can easily lead to deaths.

That being said, this law is rather too vague for my liking. I mean, it seems to me that just love bites on the breasts would be cause for arrest.

[the bulber]

Those who can afford to have a barrister present while being questioned, will probably walk away scott free. Those of us who can only afford the local hack will probably get done.

[easy_as_]

I don't think the double standard is really represented in art, personally. I see your point but I don't think personal relationships and activities compare with the doings of rich egomaniacs like Damien fucking Hirst.

It is not just about activities though, it is also about images. So therefore what is deemed a work of art and conceived however innocently, in terms of sexual connotation, may escape any censure but it could in a certain person create a sexual thought and that may be acted upon one way or another. At least if you go along with the Governments line of thinking.

I am not suggesting disected cows, sharks or sheep are the majority of peoples ' thing ' but there is always one weirdo in the bunch who ruins it for everyone and then of course the cry of ' Your Kink Is Not Ok ' goes up . . . and then the pantomime counter arguments ( " Oh yes it is " . . . " Oh no it isn't " ) and so on . . .

The art world is littered with gruesome images and one artist I am trying to think of but failing miserbaly, in famously took great delight in all manner of fates for his characters . . . . I am sorry not to be able to back this up with a name here . . . I will as soon as I can remember his name.

Got it . . . . I knew he was a Spaniard . . . . Goya, that's the fella ! I am no art expert, I ought to point out here.

However not to seem as if I am trying to justify my point overly, my view is taking the logical, extreme stand point, and as such is deliberately absurd. Purely on the basis that where do the powers that be start and stop when enforcing or even defining illegal images ?

If I were to paint a graphic image ( let us say I used models to pose ) is it somehow not as bad as if I had depicted a scene, consensually and safely, with models and a camera ?

What if the models in the graphic and ultimately illegal image that was painted had not consented to be portrayed that way, merely to being painted as the artist sees fit, release forms all signed and sealed ? I am reminded of a particular episode of Blackadder II involving a bed, Lord Percy, the Bishop of Bath and Wells and a blackmail plot . . . but still, I don't want to dilute my point any further !

[eden]

I don't think the double standard is really represented in art, personally. I see your point but I don't think personal relationships and activities compare with the doings of rich egomaniacs like Damien fucking Hirst.

It is not just about activities though, it is also about images. So therefore what is deemed a work of art and conceived however innocently, in terms of sexual connotation, may escape any censure but it could in a certain person create a sexual thought and that may be acted upon one way or another. At least if you go along with the Governments line of thinking.

I'm aware that is mainly about images... activities by couples often produce images, as we here at splosh are well aware, heehee. But if I am correct, the only images of this nature you can have and them be legal would be pictures of yourself. So my point was really what about pictures of couples? What about bdsm groups, leather families, polygamous relationships, etc, where its harder to say, "oh, thats me and my missus"?

[easy_as_]

I needn't have got all artsy fartsy . . . it seems that comic books are another great source of gore and debauchery !

here is a link in to an article in The Telegraph !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... gners.html

[BillShipton]

I disagree about the motorists thing. Motoring offences are serious because they can easily lead to deaths.
.

Would agree with that, but going to a biker pub I tend to shut up about speeding and parking!