I mean…a photo with an “endangering” looking chokehold? A photo with a knife, positioned menacingly? Good thing I respect some of y’all’s feelings and standards of decency and left the ones with the (unloaded, of course) gun out… Er…I’d need a good lawyer. And I don’t even want to get into “things which look like they might cause damage to the breasts, anus or genitals”…I mean, whose? And who gets to decide what looks like it might? Cause see, to me, fisting and dp/vag dp/anal dp and stuff…doesn’t hurt, wouldn’t damage, no big deal…but to someone who has never had a dick up their ass, it could look most damaging! Is that sort of thing even going to be taken into consideration? Things like “humm, BDSM enthusiasts and rough sex lovers and, well, porn people are more prepared, knowledgeable and experienced with this sort of thing than, oh, say, Constable Smith who pinches up his ass cheeks tighter than Fort Knox even thinking about anal sex or Concerned Citizen Sally who has never, or never even had the desire to get…ahem…pounded by more than one dick (real or synthetic) at the same time? My God, what would they make of the infamous foot? Who is going to set the standards for this shit? And seriously, if I, oh, free of charge or something want to send person X in the UK a photo of me getting railed up the ass while being choked, even though person X is an adult, and I’m an adult, and all are consenting…person X could get jailed and or fined for it…even though s/he’s not involved in the act itself…at all????Talk about getting thrown over a barrel and royally fucked!
I honestly can’t believe the country that gave us the Stones, the Sex Pistols, Ozzy, Siouxsie and the Clash has passed this law.
Disbelief. Utter disbelief.
17 comments:
Given that the law was brought in as the response to a strangulation death, I'm pretty sure that picture 1 would be right out. I think the rest would pass.
Damn, now I want to see the gun photo. >>> Sex pistols indeed!
(even weirder; person X could perform the act themself, getting railed up the ass while being choked, and that would be fine, dandy and completely legal. It's just having pictures of you doing it that's bad, wrong, woman-killing and worthy of a three year prison sentence).
(weirder than that; when FHM put child porn into their mass-market magazine, they got let off with a fine. No arrests, nada. For some reason there was nothing in the CJB to prevent this occurring again - nothing akin to 2257, not even a requirement to have proof of consent for those readers' wives/gfs columns. But that's okay, because 'extreme porn' is right out and that's way more important when it comes to protecting women!)
I advise to just do what I do. Remember that we live in a country with a written constitution to hold the crazy people at bay. Sometimes I read the constitution to calm my shattered nerves.
It's a pretty scary piece of legislation. I do NOT like laws being made with vague terminology... and frankly, that should bother everyone, regardless of your stance on pornography.
I had more to say, but that third shot along with the knife and the clothing distracted me with its hotness. *sheepish*
Yes, JP, because countries with constitutions (like the US and Australia) absolutely NEVER pass ridiculous and dangerously vague laws!
*rolls eyes*
It seems to be the natural legislative direcetion currently with ALL Social Democrat/Labor Parties: Sweden, US, Britain, Australia most prominent. Of course the Conservative parties are even worse.
eerrr.... as a gun nut and a nit picker, i can't not mention that there's no such thing as an unloaded gun.
in fact, that's rule number one of the firearms safety rules.
please do any future such scenes with an airsoft pellet gun, ok? because pointing actual firearms, no matter how carefully checked, at real live people makes gun nuts' skins crawl. or if it can't be avoided, please at least remove crucial internal parts of the firearms (such as firing pins) and keep them safe during the filming.
anony, as a gun owner, I also know all about firing pins, safeties, and all that other good stuff...but this post wasn't about firearm safety.
If people are really so concerned that someone might get the wrong idea from looking at a picture, like that real violence against women is sexy, what would be much more helpful than censorship would be a massive public education campaign to explain BDSM and rough sex. That would also help eliminate prejudice against people who practice this type of sex so that the public will understand that they are not some kind of untrustworthy, violent people. Well, of course, that's, as always, up to us, the kinky people and their allies, since our governments are too conservative to say anything positive about any kind of sex.
Come to think of it, the education of the public that BDSM people have already done, including books, magazines, and workshops, has had a positive impact on the sex lives of the rest of us. They've promoted the importance of communication, playfulness in sex, and....ironicly, SAFETY, imagine that!
Hey....it also just occurred to me - if a knife is not ok and a gun is not ok, what about a magic wand? You know, like in those BDSM pictures people draw of Harry Potter characters holding a wand on another character. A magic wand can't hurt anybody in real life, but in a fantasy world it can kill or maim. And, in BDSM, the violence, even life-threatening violence, is also a fantasy!!
"Yes, JP, because countries with constitutions (like the US and Australia) absolutely NEVER pass ridiculous and dangerously vague laws!
*rolls eyes*"
Oh they can pass laws these laws certainly but we have life-time judges who can use the power of judical review and stike these things down as unconstitutional. And have in the past, Larry Flint won 9-0. That makes me feel safe. The UK has nothing like that unless you count the EU and I would hold my breath on that.
Yah that law is really more than a little disturbing!
(weirder than that; when FHM put child porn into their mass-market magazine, they got let off with a fine. No arrests, nada.
That's because the picture wasn't pornographic.
Okay., as a UK citizen who's followed this law from its first inception:
Ren, you alone would be safe owning those images. Since there are no images there showing you receiving "Actual Bodily Harm" or worse, you're safe.
Anyone else in the UK would be done for pictures 1, 2 and 4.
1 and 2 appear to show life-threatening strangling, and number 4 shows someone being threatened with a knife. Number 3, which shows clothing being cut away, is unlikely to be covered.
The gun picture - the law is sufficiently vague that I can't actually say one way or the other.
The other requirement is that it has to be "grossly offensive", "disgusting" or "otherwise of an obscene nature". And no, I couldn't even begin to guess what those mean, but I'm guessing that Lord Hunt and his friends in the Government would probably think most of Ren's performances fell into one or other of those categories.
SE: I'm so gonna make a shirt that says "I'd be banned in the UK" and wear it in a porn scene.
"I had more to say, but that third shot along with the knife and the clothing distracted me with its hotness. *sheepish*"
Same here. *ogle*
*ahem* Okay, now that I'm done: Right on. I'd totally be behind bars several times over too, Ren.
"SE: I'm so gonna make a shirt that says "I'd be banned in the UK" and wear it in a porn scene."
I'd love to see a picture of you wearing such a shirt.
I think the fourth (knife) pic would risk falling under the definitions of the law as well as the first (strangulation) one.
The Explanatory Note of the bill gives as an example "depictions of ... sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon" ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-f.htm#index_link_104 ), suggesting that "act which threatens a person's life" doesn't just mean life-threatening injuries, but depictions of people's lives being threatened. So I would fear that porn showing someone being threatened with a knife, like the fourth image, would seem to fall under this - even if it's just role-play.
This law is mad. Even for someone who is happy to be law abiding and only look at what nanny state tells us, it's like we'll need a lawyer looking over our shoulders as we use the Internet! Even lawyers can't agree on what will be illegal or not ( http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=375 ).
Post a Comment