Extreme pornography law: they tried to sound sane but the law is mad

[ciphergoth]

emarkienna has published an analysis of the new extreme pornography law. They tried to sound sane and reasonable during the consultation process, but the law they've come up with is censorious madness. You can explicitly get three years inside for copying a segment from a legally-bought Hollywood movie into your porn folder.

Backlash are campaigning against the new law.

Aaaarghg.

Comments

Re: Because of the Internet

[(Anonymous)]

This law is not aimed at distribution at all, it is aimed at those consuming the material.

The idea that locking up people here will stop the makers of this material from posting it online is ludicrous. The Governments freely admits not one country it has approached has agreed to cooperate with this law.

Snuff? Well it is possible such things might exist the fact that is we have never seen evidence of a real snuff film (images of terrorists murdering people online will not be affected by this law and are not 'snuff').

Could you please give us examples of the "the stuff coming in is so ghastly" you mention? I have researched this subject a great deal and have yet to see an image of real abuse.

While it is certain some claim to be real, they obviously are not. They Show the same 'victims' in several acted scenarios and clearly show the perpetrators faces, along with USC2257 compliance. Having said that, even if this law were aimed at those that claim to be real (and are not) I would not oppose it.

You mention Spanner? Well so does the Government, in its justifications for this law.

As for 'ordinary people' having a say? I'm all for it. The Government claims that most people would find these images 'abhorrent', but then refuses to allow ordinary people, in the form of a jury, to decide if the images are acceptable to own or not, only if they fit the Government definitions.

As for 'enabling law', that relies considerably on the common sense application of it by the police. Having seen their absolute lack of reason in applying the Child porn laws (especially under operation ore), I would rather we had well written law.

The police have to date tried to prosecute people under child porn laws, for having pictures of their own children in the bath, holiday photos from naturist spots, holiday snaps that have girls in swimsuits in the background, Japanese anime/manga, meant to be portraying adults. Thankfully few such cases even get to court, but with the present climate even being under investigation for a sex offence can ruin lives.

The police know this very well and have been accused of demanding that the accused accept a caution or they will tell the poor sods family, friends and work colleagues what they are being investigated for. Hundreds of cautions were accepted under operation ore, this goes towards their 'total' of crimes successfully prosecuted, nice for the targets. How many were for real crimes and how many were just the police trying it on?

Re: Because of the Internet

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Please note my userinfo - anon comments must be signed at least with a pseudonym.