GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   U.K. Defines 'Extreme Pornography' (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=873764)

DVTimes 12-05-2008 06:57 PM

U.K. Defines 'Extreme Pornography'
 
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extre...hic-images.pdf

crockett 12-05-2008 07:04 PM

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.

tony286 12-05-2008 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 15152295)
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

wootpr0n 12-06-2008 01:59 AM

Quote:

3. That the image portrays in an explicit and realistic way, one of the following extreme
acts:
Page 2
a. An act which threatens a person?s life;

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.

Porno Dan 12-06-2008 02:51 AM

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.

Redrob 12-06-2008 04:38 AM

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

DaddyHalbucks 12-06-2008 06:35 AM

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

DaddyHalbucks 12-06-2008 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porno Dan (Post 15153284)
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.

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

Porn has few friends in politics.

:(

IllTestYourGirls 12-06-2008 06:40 AM

there goes bondage

Fletch XXX 12-06-2008 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks (Post 15153662)
What incentive is there for politicians to enact that? NONE.

Porn has few friends in politics.

:(

Vote Libertarian.

PixelBucks 12-06-2008 07:22 AM

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

marcjacob 12-06-2008 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wootpr0n (Post 15153183)
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.

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.

pornguy 12-06-2008 09:58 AM

" 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.

directfiesta 12-06-2008 10:47 AM

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 .... :)

TheDA 12-06-2008 11:01 AM

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.

mikesouth 12-06-2008 11:05 AM

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.

marcjacob 12-06-2008 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth (Post 15154847)
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.

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.

CarlosTheGaucho 12-06-2008 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porno Dan (Post 15153284)
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.

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.

DVTimes 12-06-2008 03:21 PM

its going to be a pain i think.

$5 submissions 12-06-2008 04:59 PM

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.

Kudles 12-06-2008 08:43 PM

Seems not that bad

Porno Dan 12-07-2008 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porno Dan (Post 15153284)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks (Post 15153662)
What incentive is there for politicians to enact that? NONE.

Porn has few friends in politics.

:(


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



Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho (Post 15155090)
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.


I am all for this if it ends obscenity prosections

The Duck 12-07-2008 10:46 PM

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

Porno Dan 12-09-2008 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kandah (Post 15160390)
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.

Sarah_Jayne 12-09-2008 05:25 AM

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'.

GatorB 12-09-2008 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_MaxCash (Post 15166308)
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.

marcjacob 12-09-2008 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 15166453)
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.

Sarah_Jayne 12-09-2008 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 15166453)
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.

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.

Sarah_Jayne 12-09-2008 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcjacob (Post 15166611)
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.

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.

GatorB 12-09-2008 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcjacob (Post 15166611)
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.

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.

Sarah_Jayne 12-09-2008 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 15166778)
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.

DVTimes 12-12-2008 05:24 PM

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

GatorB 12-12-2008 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_MaxCash (Post 15166979)
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.

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.

ukxtra 12-12-2008 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcjacob (Post 15154247)
...There is some interesting information on the CPS website about what they consider obscene. Bondage with gagging is considered obscene...

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

Paul Markham 12-13-2008 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDA (Post 15154832)
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.

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.

Paul Markham 12-13-2008 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth (Post 15154847)
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.

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

Kudles 12-13-2008 12:49 PM

Not too bad

ronaldh 01-22-2009 11:20 AM

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

TheDA 01-22-2009 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldh (Post 15372980)
Oh well hopefully extreme alex and sophia won't be to angry

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123