|
|
| Frightening UK porn laws |
We've been following the ongoing #PornTrial which is being tweeted live.
For more info on the trial see
http://heresydungeon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-trial-of-simon-walsh-at-kingston.html
And for more information on the new CPS guidelines for prosecution, see
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
What the new guidelines cover, and what the case at Kingston Crown Court basically say is that if you view images of fisting, you can receive a 2 year prison sentence. You don't have to 'possess' the image as you do with other forms of illegal porn, you just have to have knowingly viewed it.
So, you can get 2 years viewing a picture of a sexual act between to concenting adults which it is both legal to perform, and it is legal to photograph, but not legal to look at a picture of.
Interestingly, during the case, the CPS also made the accusation that people who attended sexual health clinics took part in higher risk sexual practices.
Fucking shocking.
|
|
|
| by MARKBRENDON on August 8, 2012 |
Section 63 of the 2008 Act is now surely wholly discredited, though at the cost of a decent man's career and privacy. Any proscription founded upon subjective - albeit majority - responses (in this case 'grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character') invites such prosecutions by a censorious and ignorant CPS.
As for outlawing the portrayal of any act 'which results in, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals', such particularity is perverse (heads and vital organs are afforded no such special status) and 'likelihood' is the province of bookmakers and insurance assessors, not legislators. The quotidian portrayal of bareback sex between strangers might be deemed likelier to cause harm to these and all other parts than any of the weird and wonderful practices of BDSMers.
There are innumerable arguments which could be made here, but, as with hunting or smoking bans, even to make them were to sanction the supremacy of opinion, sentiment or statistics over personal freedom. The notions of urethral sounding and excrementally lubricated fisting are repugnant to me, but then so are fast food burgers, obesity and Justin Bieber. It has nothing to do with me, you or, above all, the law. Consenting adults are free to enter whatever contract they will. Mill's Harm Principle is thereafter the only tenable precept. |
|
| by KINKYTHANET on August 8, 2012 |
The defendant and a human rights lawyer (I believe) will be appearing on the BBC's Newsnight program tonight, that's on BBC2 at 22.40 BST (UTC+1).
I understand there are proxies which will allow those not in the UK to view British television programming on . |
|
| by LAUGHINGLOVERS on August 8, 2012 |
| What's a little government censorship between friends? Uh Oh, for my Canadian audience I'm sorry if I get you in trouble for not first submitting to whichever oversight board has jurisdiction over sarcasm. |
|
| by FILTH on August 8, 2012 |
You should do a bit of research on the current Canadian Government and free speech if you think they have common sense. No state funded scientist, including all University Professors, can speak to a journalist with copy-approval of a minister.
Good news on the fisting case, reminds us of R v Bell, or the 'knob-nailing' case as its referred to in Law schools.
Now lets hope Pussy Riot can win their case in Russia..... |
|
| by KINKYTHANET on August 8, 2012 |
Pleased to say Simon Walsh has just been found unanimously NOT GUILTY on all counts. Time for the CPS to answer some questions as to why they tried to prosecute, why they claim that people who use sexual health clinics engage in high risk behaviour, and hopefully, the farcical extreme porn law will be looked at a little more closely now! |
|
| by KINKYTHANET on August 7, 2012 |
Well we've had the closing arguments and the jury has retired to consider its verdict.
Basically, the argument has come down to, Is fisting extreme porn (i.e. is it dangerous, or harmful).
The prosecution has admitted that no evidence exists to 'prove' that the defendant viewed the images, but because the email had been opened, it must be assumed he did.
It also used the argument that the reason he had absolutely no porn on any of his computers, he must have moved it all to another computer that was not forensically examined.
We too are planning to leave this idiotic country and move to Canada. You guys have common sense even if it is frickin cold there!
|
|
| by SFLFUN on August 7, 2012 |
| This is the direction we are headed if we keep morons like Santorum around. |
|
| by LAUGHINGLOVERS on August 7, 2012 |
And here we thought the UK was so far ahead of the US in attitudes toward sex. Shocked and saddened. The takeaway for me is that less government is better government. Stay out of a citizens way, we can make up our own minds, and suffer our own mistakes.
On a positive note, we're planning a trip to Montreal and found out that our beautiful northern neighbors have legalized commercial swing clubs. That's progress. |
|
| by INTOTHEWEST on August 7, 2012 |
How bloody ridiculous! There should be a law against people having their heads up their arses.
And STD tests??? - the same logic infers that people who insure their cars drive more dangerously.
The legal system fiddles - whilst bankers are still free to find more perverse ways to fuck us..........
|
|
| by NL225E on August 7, 2012 |
That seems to be the dumbest case i've ever seen. how would they proved that you even viewed it when you have sites that use pop-up that may have the content shown but you closed it. even worse, are they going to invade every ones privacy and do random searches on mobiles and desktop units to see who saw what? it won't pass and if it does, it will be appealed. |
|
|
|
Create comment
|
|
|
|