U.K. Defines 'Extreme Pornography'
 

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Be lucky they give you clear cut things to avoid. I'd much rather deal with a regulation like that than with the community standards BS that we have here in the US.

amen brother:thumbsup

It is actually a worse law. They can prosecute anybody they want through this loophole. Any sexual act could threaten your life if you procure an STD as a result of it.

I am more and more for a US goverment review board that approves all online, dvd, mobile, and broadcast adult material.

At least one would know what is acceptable and there wouldn't be there a legal gray area where one can be prosecuted for something that is obscene by "community standards".

If the adult industry is ever going to truly socially acceptable that would be one huge step.

Any $99 DVD set is too extreme for my wallet.

How does Canada's policy compare? They also ban violent porn, right?

What incentive is there for politicians to enact that? NONE.

Porn has few friends in politics.

:(

there goes bondage

Vote Libertarian.

Oh Great...
 

And we just landed a model into extreme stuff for our network :( I'll have to tell her she cant be gagged too hard :1orglaugh

Thats actually exaclty what the MOJ are saying cant happen. To fall foul of the new law, the material would have to be obscene in the first place. In which case the publisher is already breaking the law.

There is some interesting information on the CPS website about what they consider obscene. Bondage with gagging is considered obscene, but then it always has been.

Standard sex is not obscene under the Obscene Publications Act. If you read the act, it has to be something that when taken as a whole, would tend to corrupt or deprave the average viewer. The type of sex which virtually every normal person has anyway, cannot do that.

" That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene
character, and "


I find this quite open and scary. BY WHO's standard! God forbid that it's simply by a jury.

d. A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

...

Seems a new niche ( no pun intented ) for UK :


Girls jacking off animals .... :)

These new guidelines actually don't go that much farther than what was already known and things are about as clear as mud.

A piss-poor attempt at clarification. If you are pulled up before the courts, a jury will still be the ones to decide based on their interpretation of it.

whats interesting is that this material is illegal to POSSESS of course that would imply that it would be illegal to produce as well which seems to be the dilemma here.

In the US it is legal to possess anything except CP so theres an implied right to produce. This is a popular defense these days and its what got Extreme Associates case dismissed originally (charges were re-instated after an en banc hearing) But the judge who wrote the original decision is still presiding if it ever comes to trial.

I think what the UK is doing is a pretty good attempt but I dont really like the idea of obscenity as a whole. Lets take Max for instance I'd say if you think he should be in jail convict him for assault and battery, sexual battery and a host of other crimes that might be applicable. Toss the obscenity angle its just a smoke screen anyway.

Course this is all why I vote Libertarian.

The thing about freedom is that you give it up the instant you give government the power to enforce your will on someone else. You lost your freedon and they lost theirs and neither of you is the better for it.

The point of this is to ban possesion of material that its illegal to produce. They stated that in the advice.

The problem was, it may be illegal to produce scat (for example) in the UK, but not in other countries. But people in the UK could legally posses it.

This law ONLY covers material which is also covered under the Obscene Publications Act. They are very clear about that in the advice linked to in the first post.

I was very worried about this until I read it properly.

Well as far as it might sound like a way to prevent obscenity law cases, it's a pain as far as it brings notable costs and processing, I've experienced that with UK and Canada.

its going to be a pain i think.

The clear examples are a pretty welcome development. Most of obscenity standards are quite vague and open to interpretation depending on how the political winds blow.

Seems not that bad

There is a huge incentive they can tax and regulate our industry.




I am all for this if it ends obscenity prosections

Fuck all regulations on adult material. If its fucked its fucked, we dont need anyone to tell us.

I am glad you feel that way.

We as an adult industry in the US have to regulate ourselves or else there will be more prosecutions.

If we have to have this at all at least they are attempting to define. If was far too open for people to stumble into a grey area. I was actually fairly happy with the 'plain English' approach to the document and particularly in the attempt in it to clarify, as best as possible 'serious injury' and 'life-threatening'.

What is "serious injury"? would double anal be an act that could be considered to cause "serious injury to the anus"? I've enver gotten why some sexual acts that are LEGAL between 2( or more ) adults can not be filmed.

Dont forget that for this to apply, the material has to be obscene in the first place. If you take "serious injury" and ignore the rest, its scary legislation. If you know that the material has to obscene before this law even kicks in, it should be obvious that this doesnt apply to anyone here. If it does, then they need to get out of the biz they are in because no one in the UK should be producing obscene content. Thats a one way ticket to jail.

Everyone who panicks about this is totally ignoring this part of it. This is ONLY to catch users who willfully posses obscene and exteme porn, that would be illgeal to produce in the UK. Nothing else.

Later down in the document it attempts to define serious injury and uses the example of sharp implements (ie knives) being inserted.

Don't get me wrong, I have never been a fan of this move (which was brought about by the family of a woman who was killed during consensual sexual strangling going mad that the guy got the idea from violent porn). However, if we have to have it I am glad they are attempting to define the terms at last.

I also liked the clear language used in the bit about accidental viewing and deletion. They are trying to make this which is something that if they decide to go after somebody there is no wishy washy-ness about it. Also, the bit about not being able to take one picture out of context in a whole body of work.

There are many that would consider double anal to be obscene.

Obscenity is BS law. If it's legal to perform such acts in private it should be legal to film it. it's illegal to screw kids so making CP illegal makes perfect sense. It's illegal to fuck your dog so making filming you fucking a dog illegal makes sense.

I mean seriously, a guy can fist his wife but if he films it it's illegal. ok. Does this make any kind of sense? The governments in both the US and the UK need to quit worying about what people do in their bedroom and what they may be jacking off to. The UK doesn't care of some dude is spending all his family's money on online poker( because it's prefectly legal in the uk ) but worries if some other dude is jacking off to a porno where some chick is getting 3 fists in her cunt.

You might want to look into sodomy laws in various states. They don't just cover anal sex in many places. Oral sex, for example, is often covered under them even between a married couple.

I don't think any of us are saying, 'yay, they are censoring!' but at least they are letting us know what they are censoring.

bump....................

Just me ONE case in the last 35-40 years in the US where a married couple got jailtime for having oral sex or anal sex. Doesn't matter if it's "on the books" those laws are not being enforced because everyone knows they are BS.

That's going to fuck up the playtime of High Court Judges and MP's then :1orglaugh

And that has always been the deciding factor for the prosecutors, can they get a jury to agree with their interpretation? In the distant past they had good results, then in the 60s and 70s the juries were laughing them out of court. The only way they could get a conviction was to get a senile judge who hated porn.

The law states something like this "Likely to corrupt and deprave the audience it is intended for."

I have actually sat in the courtroom, in the seats at the back, after the jury had seen the film that was considered to corrupt and deprave and the defense barrister asked the jury if any of them felt corrupted and depraved? The film featured anal sex. :1orglaugh

This was in the 80s and the jury threw it out.

This new law is going to go the same way unless it's very extreme and there are mainstream films that could fall foul of it.

This law is aimed at the people who buy rather than commercial producers. We should know what's legal.

Not too bad

Oh well hopefully extreme alex and sophia won't be to angry

^^^^^ A 'timely' bump. :) This new stuff comes into force after the weekend.