Kinky Porn Illegal? (Full Version)

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



Message


GabrielleSlave -> Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/29/2008 1:13:17 PM)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm

Just wondered if anyone else has read this?

Gabrielle x




SensibleSam -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/29/2008 4:32:35 PM)

quote:

Just wondered if anyone else has read this?


Well I have now.

Maybe its a good thing the way the Scopes Monkey Trial was a good thing. The proposed law is obviously contrary to simple sense. Perhaps if these issues get blown up into a media frenzy type court case there will be some illumination fall out for the general public.



 





TheHungryTiger -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/29/2008 6:28:48 PM)

The Longhurst thing again?

After draging on for the past 5 years, Im suprised anyone in the kink scene HASENT read about it.




GabrielleSlave -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 5:00:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

The Longhurst thing again?

After draging on for the past 5 years, Im suprised anyone in the kink scene HASENT read about it.



Sorry, but not everyone has been in the lifestyle for as long as you... i have been in it for just 16 months so mostly everything is still news to me.

Gabrielle




BlackPhx -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 6:05:55 AM)

Many people are just discovering their interest in this life choice, some are older and may have read this, some younger and just of age to legally access these boards.

Pornography does not incite one to performing acts. An interest in those acts already (even if only nebulous fantasies) leads you to pornography that may support it if you are so inclined. Unfortunately if such pornography is not readily available, they will create their own. If like the gent whose murdering hands sparked this initiative there is no volunteer he/she/they will create their own from some unfortunate.

Oh My...such a broad stroked law..do you suppose they will arrest you for having a print of the painting Rape of the Sabine Women? http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=ng38 I hope it gets shot down, it will do nothing to stop the ones who torture and kill for their own pleasure, just incarcerate Mr. Brown for his whack off fantasies and give a boost to the economy of the sites in the Netherlands and other countries where you can view to your hearts content for a few dollars a month..no downloads or prints required.

poenkitten (sighing)




abcbsex -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 8:52:24 AM)

good call there poenkitten, it just goes to show that such violence existed long before pornography was around. It will exist long after, if suddenly porn becomes illegal.




missfrillypants -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 9:07:04 AM)

did anyone stop to think that if someone is MURDERING people, they're probably not going to be all that worried that their porn is outlawed?

i understand that they're thinking that the porn was purchased first, but i doubt someone who would commit a crime you can get life imprisonment or lethal injection for is going to be especially worried about getting arrested for pornography, which is bound to be a lesser charge... or at least i hope so. and just look at how many serial killers are convicted of things like assault or rape or animal mutilation or something before they kill someone... getting arrested may not stop them.

it's just as stupid as blaming doom for the columbine shootings or saying that because i've met a lot of vegetarian lesbians that if you want women to stop becoming lesbians, you just have to feed them red meat once and awhile.




GreedyTop -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 9:51:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missfrillypants

it's just as stupid as blaming doom for the columbine shootings or saying that because i've met a lot of vegetarian lesbians that if you want women to stop becoming lesbians, you just have to feed them red meat once and awhile.



ok.. gotta agree with this point..and add a *snort* cause I thought it was funny..LOL




TheHungryTiger -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 10:27:58 AM)

I realy wouldent worry about it that much. The bill dosent have much teath in it, instead it just being an attempt to make Liz Longhurst shut up and go away.

There is already a law on the books in the UK againt the making of violent porn, so a law that makes something already iligeal into extra iliegal is kind of silly. Its like the law here in the united states that made it iligeal to kill a child while filming porn. Since murder is already againt the law, and child porn is already againt the law, a law againt murder durring child porn is just a publicicty stunt by politicians to make it look as if they are 'doing something'.

The one key piece of evedence that makes me think this is all a non issue is that the guy who made the violent porn in question in the case is not only still out walking the streets, but is still making violent porn. Police couldent even shut down his website. They only managed to close it through a backdoor trick of lobying his credit card processer. That efecticly closed down the website but he simply opened up a new one with a new processer. If Van der Hulst wasent areasted for makign violent porn when there was a law againt making violent porn, I doubt that anybody is going to get arested for viewing violent porn when there is law againt viewing violent.




LadyEllen -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 12:27:24 PM)

The law itself, as I have mentioned before and discussed at length, is not really a problem for us when one considers what is actually proscribed here.

The problem for us is that suspicion of possession of such images is more than sufficient - totally absent any conviction - to ruin one's life forever by way of the inevitable publicity that an arrest for such a charge will prompt.

What will be interesting, will be whether it stands up to scrutiny in the face of EU legislation, which trumps UK legislation, and which provides certain protections under human rights laws, which may well come into conflict with this soon to be Act.

The legislation will go through - of that there is no doubt. It is contained as a fairly minor feature in a mammoth Bill "The Criminal Justice Act 2008" which covers many more areas than this alone and many more far more important areas than this alone and will pass on the strength of these more important areas.

E




Politesub53 -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 12:58:31 PM)

This law should not been seen in the same light as the old one. The existing law was aimed at people making porn. The new one is aimed at people viewing it. In itself it is dangerously vague.

An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's lifeAn act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals Who is to say what act may or may not cause damage ? Lady Ellen makes a point that this will ruin peoples lives. Many will take a police caution ( resulting in a criminal record and their DNA on the UK data base ) rathter than taking a chance in a public court of law.




Wheldrake -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 1:40:24 PM)

I'm still waiting for the headline that says "England moves to ban depictions of le vice anglais".

But humour aside, what a horrid, puritanical law. I agree with Politesub53 that the vagueness in a phrase like "serious injury" is a real problem. Surely it will be difficult for people to be sure what level of "violence" the law is meant to forbid.




LadyEllen -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 5:25:15 PM)

With respect - there is no vagueness in the term "serious injury", according to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). If one looks up the required levels of injury in relation to assaults under English law, the only occasion when "serious injury" is used is in relation to Grievious Bodily Harm. Therefore by its own logic, a serious injury under this new law must be at least consistent with one which would satisfy a charge for GBH.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of us are engaged in ABH (Actual Bodily Harm) at most, and I would suspect that the vast majority of us who view bdsm porn are viewing porn involving ABH if it involves any form of assault under the law at all.

The only real problems for most of us in all this are being arrested on suspicion and the accompanying publicity and ruin that will bring (accepting a caution by the way may well still mean registering as a sex offender and being confused with certain other types who get convicted for pornographic images), and inadvertently committing an offence by way of surfing the net for porn which is not proscribed but then finding porn which is proscribed - once downloaded to your PC, you are in possession and have little defence. If I were an evangelical organisation hell bent on purifying our evil, I'd be even now setting up websites overseas which would attract ordinary bdsm people into inadvertently committing such an offence.

E




TheHungryTiger -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (4/30/2008 6:27:24 PM)

quote:

The only real problems for most of us in all this are being arrested on suspicion and the accompanying publicity and ruin that will bring
But isnt that a problem already?

People have been having their lives screwed up by falls charges for ages now. (Oliver Jovanic leaps to mind.) And the fear of being accedently outed to your nieghbors/cowoekrs is a concern with our without this law.

So in that regard, this law is going to have even smaller of an impact.




Politesub53 -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/1/2008 1:44:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

With respect - there is no vagueness in the term "serious injury", according to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). If one looks up the required levels of injury in relation to assaults under English law, the only occasion when "serious injury" is used is in relation to Grievious Bodily Harm. Therefore by its own logic, a serious injury under this new law must be at least consistent with one which would satisfy a charge for GBH.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of us are engaged in ABH (Actual Bodily Harm) at most, and I would suspect that the vast majority of us who view bdsm porn are viewing porn involving ABH if it involves any form of assault under the law at all.

The only real problems for most of us in all this are being arrested on suspicion and the accompanying publicity and ruin that will bring (accepting a caution by the way may well still mean registering as a sex offender and being confused with certain other types who get convicted for pornographic images), and inadvertently committing an offence by way of surfing the net for porn which is not proscribed but then finding porn which is proscribed - once downloaded to your PC, you are in possession and have little defence. If I were an evangelical organisation hell bent on purifying our evil, I'd be even now setting up websites overseas which would attract ordinary bdsm people into inadvertently committing such an offence.

E


The words serious injury are clear enough, what produces the vagueness is the additonal words in the act.






An act which APPEARS  to result in ( or be likely to result in ) serious injury.

We all know a caning can be light or severe, yet a stills photo or a video wont show the difference, of the said likely result. This is the problem we will all face.











LadyEllen -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/1/2008 3:26:28 AM)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c.html

COMMON ASSAULT


where injuries amount to no more than the following:

Grazes;
Scratches;
Abrasions;
Minor bruising;
Swellings;
Reddening of the skin;
Superficial cuts;
A 'black eye.'
ACTUAL HODILY HARM


By way of example, the following injuries should normally be prosecuted under section 47:

Loss or breaking of tooth or teeth;
Temporary loss of sensory functions, which may include loss of consciousness. T v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2003] Crim. L. R. 622
Extensive or multiple bruising;
displaced broken nose;
minor fractures;
minor, but not merely superficial, cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches);
psychiatric injury that is more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic. In any case where psychiatric injury is relied upon, as the basis for an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the matter is not admitted by the defence, then expert evidence must be called by the prosecution. (R v Chan-Fook, 99 Cr. App. R. 147, CA).
GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM


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.
E




LadyEllen -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/1/2008 4:28:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The words serious injury are clear enough, what produces the vagueness is the additonal words in the act.

An act which APPEARS  to result in ( or be likely to result in ) serious injury.

We all know a caning can be light or severe, yet a stills photo or a video wont show the difference, of the said likely result. This is the problem we will all face.



I can understand the concern - but an image of a caning to the buttocks IS NOT PROSCRIBED and can be severe without it falling into the same category as a GBH assault in any case - ie resulting in or appearing or likely to result in serious injury. Most canings would count as Common Assault, and a very severe instance might just satisfy the ABH conditions for cuts requiring stitches.

The image is only evidence of an offence if it concerns
a) serious injury, (ie injury which would satisfy GBH), AND
b) the serious injury is to breasts, anus or genitals

So, most bdsm images - the vast majority I should think, are not going to be sufficient evidence of an offence, either because they dont invoke the breasts, anus or genitals part or because they dont satisfy the serious injury part.

E




Stephann -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/1/2008 2:32:44 PM)

Briefly,

Most mainstream BDSM porn (kink.com, twistedfactory.com, etc) have very strict rules in terms of how severe the tops may flog, bind, cane, etc.  Many of the models used are actually mainstream porn models, with strict rules themselves in terms of not leaving marks; meaning nothing more than very minor bruises the next day.  Indeed, many sites shoot the same model two or three days in a row for different sites, and marking the model severely one night would mean she might not be able to shoot the next day, wasting a great deal of time and money.

Stephan




Lynnxz -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/1/2008 2:40:23 PM)

Oops... way to go... I got my porn sites mixed up.. ignore this post :)




TheHungryTiger -> RE: Kinky Porn Illegal? (5/1/2008 2:58:51 PM)

You havent been the first pertson to get them mixed up ..... but the Longhurst case is in the UK and Hardtied is based in the US.

2257 is another can of worms. It actualy it wasent the case of the government messing with them as much as being afraid the goverment was about to come messing with them. 2257 is the Y2K of porn. Everyone in a panic about the looming disastar that they just ~know~ is about to happen, so everyone stockpiles food and buys generators and moves their business to Denmark in preperation for when society colapases.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0234375