Government finally names the day for porn ban

Where does this leave cannibal corps, "strawberry float you with a knife".

Let's Celebrate Good Times Come On.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Look Over There wrote:Where does this leave cannibal corps, "**** you with a knife".

Listen to Tomb of the Mutilated its 100% worse.

...Naw.

I don't care.

Shadow wrote:I don't care.

Neither do I. I want everything to be banned so I won't feel like I'm missing out when I kill myself.

Cal wrote:

T9Flake wrote:

Cal wrote:Next up: the complete outlawing of all Manga comics and videos (already at the consultation stage in Parliament)....

Please tell me you're joking

Consultation on the Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions of Child Sexual Abuse, Summary of responses and next steps (June 2007) wrote:The creation of a new offence of the possession of cartoons, drawings, computer
generated images and other material which depicts, or appears to depict, child sexual
abuse is a significant step. It is recognised that these images, unlike those produced in the
making of indecent photographs of children, do not involve harm to real children in their
creation, and the Government has further deliberated on the proposals, in the light of the
comments put forward... It is important, in this changing environment, that the law is
responsive and remains fully equipped to protect the public, and, in particular, the most
vulnerable members of society. We continue to believe that tightening up the law to cover
possession of such material is justified.

In the consultation, it was proposed that there should be a maximum penalty of three years’
imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both for possession of material depicting non-photographic
visual depictions of child sexual abuse. The offence will be an either way offence and, on summary
conviction, the maximum penalty will be six months, or a fine up
to the statutory maximum (currently £5,000), or both.

You have remember, this is the UK Government consulting with child protection professionals on the question of criminalising the possession of CG imagery, cartoons and drawings: NOT photographs = not real children. For being found in possession of any such drawings (such as hentai, yaoi or shota, you can expect to face three years in prison (CEOP, of course, favour five years - the same for being found in possession of REAL CP; you know, involving actual human beings), a place on the Sex Offenders Register and the complete and utter end of your life, job, relationship, family and home as you know it.

Hang on Yaoi, you are joking right? Seems a bit pointless banning that. Someone's got their wires crossed here methinks either someone's got the wrong idea completely or they've lumped it into the same catagory as shota for a giggle.

I want clarification about whether or not this law is coming into effect for the whole of Britain or not - Scotland has it's own devolved criminal justice system and I'm thinking that this falls under the Scottish Parliament's jurisdiction.

Corazon wrote:I want clarification about whether or not this law is coming into effect for the whole of Britain or not - Scotland has it's own devolved criminal justice system and I'm thinking that this falls under the Scottish Parliament's jurisdiction.

I'm pretty sure this doesn't count for us Scots. Taken from the Criminal Justice Bill -

CJB - Part 5 - Section 63 - Line 10 wrote:Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5

There's absolutely nothing in the bill that even remotely relates to Scotland. There's no mention of us or any of the bodies that deal with Criminal Justice up here (Procurater Fiscal and all that) in the bill either.

Panic averted for the kilt wearers *does a Highland fling*

Anung Un Rama wrote:YAS

Now i dont normally watch sick stuff, but i might now just to show the man in england!

I'm more bothered about how we keep the stream of English and Welsh sickos out of the country post January

If I had a wank over something like Hostel, would that mean they'd have to ban it?

Shadow wrote:If I had a wank over something like Hostel, would that mean they'd have to ban it?

It's actually a valid question. The government has been taking consultation submissions from members of the British Film Institute and other concerned organisations because such movie-related bodies have expressed grave concerns about the implications of the new laws both to current and new projects and with regard to the vast archives of older films. If the new laws on 'indecency' are to be extended retrospectively it could - in all seriousness - see the introduction of widespread banning/censorship of a great many films.

To a degree this has happened already, with many foreign films featuring images of nude children (quite legitimately and without salaciousness implied), being deemed 'unsuitable' for terrestrial TV broadcast. Just think back to the idiocy about Elton John's 'art print' of a nude young girl that was confiscated by UK police from an art exhibition in Liverpool and examined for 'pornographic' content (before being handed back by suitably sheepish plods).

As I keep saying, these laws are very wide in their remit and are intended as 'catch-all' legislation, leading to all manner of ways in which this government - in cahoots with their police forces (who have argued for tough legislation and very tough sentencing to go with it) - can extend it's 'watch list' of 'indecent' media.

Cal wrote:Okay, I know you might find this concept potentially difficult to accept or even grasp, but guess what? Yes, that's right: some people prefer their sex very kinky indeed. And I mean very.

Steve said it right when he suggested this isn't really about so-called 'extreme' sex (btw, such sexual activity isn't as rare as that word 'extreme' is designed to suggest: the number of people, of all ages, races and walks of life, into some form of 'kinky' sex is quite staggering), but rather about preparing the way for a wider clampdown on pornography in general. This law is another of the Government's 'enablers' - it opens the door, legally, for 'revisions' which won't have to go through public consultations or tedious Parliamentary debates...

I completely agree, it's quite scary what the implications are. Me and my gf, as well as lots of our friends are quite kinky, and this is scary. Ironically, the government are touting gay rights and racial equality yet clamping down on us, probably because you "can't help it" being gay or from another country, whereas anyone into BDSM in any way is somehow screwed in the head and is a danger to society. Am I going to have to delete my entire porn folder for fear of being arrested for what "reasonable" (read - Daily Mail-"somebody please think of the children"-killjoy-busybody-censorship-bastard) people think is morally abhorrent? Well guess what? I have different opinions, and they are just as valid. Sod off and leave us alone.

The real causes of the degredation of society? Look in the sodding papers, fucked-up parents abusing their kids for years, said kids become souless chavs, the cycle continues.

[/rant]

Didn't the same thing happen with video nasties in the 80es? Are those still illegal? Did anyone actually get busted for possessing a video nasty?

"In addition, the picture must be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and "a reasonable person" would consider the action depicted to be real."

If that 'reasonable person' is a Daily Mail reader then we're all screwed. Kinky or not.

Lime wrote:"In addition, the picture must be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and "a reasonable person" would consider the action depicted to be real."

If that 'reasonable person' is a Daily Mail reader then we're all screwed. Kinky or not.

It's back to the Victiorian era for us.

Lime wrote:"In addition, the picture must be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and "a reasonable person" would consider the action depicted to be real."

If that 'reasonable person' is a Daily Mail reader then we're all screwed. Kinky or not.

They'll never get my Monica Sweet videos.

But not us! WAHEY!

\o/

bear wrote:

Lime wrote:"In addition, the picture must be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and "a reasonable person" would consider the action depicted to be real."

If that 'reasonable person' is a Daily Mail reader then we're all screwed. Kinky or not.

They'll never get my Monica Sweet videos.

I'm intriqued, are they kinky?

Not really no.