gprime
May 2nd, 2008, 08:11 PM
The term "extreme pornography" was first used by the British government in a 2006 survey inquiring whether or not it should be banned as soon as was feasable. Only 36% supported this proposal, though it continually finds its way into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. At present, said bill must be passed before the 8th of May to prevent a critical issue pertaining to police/prison guard strikes (as I understand it). But the bill, which covers a broad range of material, also goes into great detail regarding pornography (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400):
64
Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1)
It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic
image.
(2)
An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
35
(a)
pornographic, and
(b)
an extreme image.
(3)
An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or
principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Part 6 — Criminal law
45
(4)
Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the
image appears to have been so produced is to be determined by reference to—
(a)
the image itself, and
(b)
(if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for
the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
5
(5)
So, for example, where—
(a)
an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of
images, and
(b)
it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely
or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
10
the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be
pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if
taken by itself.
(6)
An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—
(a)
an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
15
(b)
an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in
serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c)
an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a
human corpse,
(d)
a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or
20
oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or
appears to be real.
(7)
In this section “image” means—
(a)
a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
25
(b)
data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an
image within paragraph (a).
(8)
In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part
surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).
Not surprisingly, the law has inspired great debate, as it holds consumers liable (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7364475.stm) or viewing such images, thus potentially exposing them to jail time.
"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry. Never mind the fact that the images of which he speaks are of acts that are legal, are produced by consenting parties, and are not even necessarily the result of commercial transactions.
There are several serious issues with this law. First, it exposes over two million people (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_bill_extreme_pron/page2.html) to potential prison time. Second, it punishes and demonizes human sexuality (http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article936.html).Third, it violates accepted human rights laws (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/qcopinion.html). Moreover, it is very vague, and thus open to great abuse (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/unintend.html). It will likely punish those looking for safety information regarding safe fetish practices (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7372105.stm), thereby endangering the lives of the 10% of Britons who are actively of that persuasian (see last link for source).
Unsurprisingly, the advocates of the policy make highly inaccurate claims (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/mislead.html). And their justification is even less rational (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/justif.html). So, there is no grounds to defend the legislation, which has a very good chance of passing, and which promises to be even more draconian and abusive than the VRA and the ensuing video nasties crisis Britain face decades ago.
There is less than a week until a final decision is reached, and the consequences of passage could be dire. Therefore, any advocate of liberty and human rights must speak up. It is (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/help.html)easy to speak out. At the very least, make a small donation to Backlash (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/payment/payment.html), the coalition leading the opposition to the bill, as I have. For those reluctant to, please first review their About us page (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/about.html).
For those wanting additional information, please visit the following links:
Seen No Evil Forums (http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/) (sponsored by Backlash)
See No Evil Wiki (http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) (also sponsored by Backlash)
Melon Farmers "Extreme Pornography" Update (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gch.htm)
64
Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1)
It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic
image.
(2)
An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
35
(a)
pornographic, and
(b)
an extreme image.
(3)
An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or
principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Part 6 — Criminal law
45
(4)
Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the
image appears to have been so produced is to be determined by reference to—
(a)
the image itself, and
(b)
(if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for
the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
5
(5)
So, for example, where—
(a)
an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of
images, and
(b)
it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely
or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
10
the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be
pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if
taken by itself.
(6)
An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—
(a)
an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
15
(b)
an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in
serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c)
an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a
human corpse,
(d)
a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or
20
oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or
appears to be real.
(7)
In this section “image” means—
(a)
a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
25
(b)
data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an
image within paragraph (a).
(8)
In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part
surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).
Not surprisingly, the law has inspired great debate, as it holds consumers liable (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7364475.stm) or viewing such images, thus potentially exposing them to jail time.
"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry. Never mind the fact that the images of which he speaks are of acts that are legal, are produced by consenting parties, and are not even necessarily the result of commercial transactions.
There are several serious issues with this law. First, it exposes over two million people (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_bill_extreme_pron/page2.html) to potential prison time. Second, it punishes and demonizes human sexuality (http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article936.html).Third, it violates accepted human rights laws (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/qcopinion.html). Moreover, it is very vague, and thus open to great abuse (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/unintend.html). It will likely punish those looking for safety information regarding safe fetish practices (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7372105.stm), thereby endangering the lives of the 10% of Britons who are actively of that persuasian (see last link for source).
Unsurprisingly, the advocates of the policy make highly inaccurate claims (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/mislead.html). And their justification is even less rational (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/justif.html). So, there is no grounds to defend the legislation, which has a very good chance of passing, and which promises to be even more draconian and abusive than the VRA and the ensuing video nasties crisis Britain face decades ago.
There is less than a week until a final decision is reached, and the consequences of passage could be dire. Therefore, any advocate of liberty and human rights must speak up. It is (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/help.html)easy to speak out. At the very least, make a small donation to Backlash (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/payment/payment.html), the coalition leading the opposition to the bill, as I have. For those reluctant to, please first review their About us page (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/about.html).
For those wanting additional information, please visit the following links:
Seen No Evil Forums (http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/) (sponsored by Backlash)
See No Evil Wiki (http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) (also sponsored by Backlash)
Melon Farmers "Extreme Pornography" Update (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gch.htm)