Quote:
Originally Posted by marcjacob
Badly written but I agree with its aims. It was passed after someone who reguarly viewed extreme porn went onto kill.
|
Which case is this? I wasn't aware of that - however a current trial that comes to mind is the one that toes the line between art and obscenity:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...n_girls_aloud/
Quote:
The legal world is buzzing at the announcement last week of the prosecution of 35-year-old civil servant Darryn Walker for the online publication of material that Police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) believe to be obscene.
This is the first such prosecution for written material in nearly two decades – and a guilty verdict could have a serious and significant impact on the future regulation of the internet in the UK.
The case originated in summer 2007, when Mr Walker allegedly posted a work of fantasy – titled Girls (Scream) Aloud - about pop group Girls Aloud.
The story describes in detail the kidnap, rape, mutilation and murder of band members Cheryl Cole, Nadine Coyle, Sarah Harding, Nicola Roberts and Kimberley Walsh, and ends with the sale of various body parts on eBay.
....
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcjacob
It bans things like violence, sex with the dead etc etc.
|
That is the problem - lack of definition. As it is,
The bill legislation (s.63 - s.66) would make it a crime to possess material that was pornographic and realistically depicted various acts, including extreme violence, bestiality and necrophilia.
Now, if you don't drop the words "
including extreme violence, bestiality and necrophilia." which are simply guidelines, then we get into a whole messy murky area. Deep throating till the girl pukes? DP? S&M?