Gordon Brown's government could make it illegal to download facesitting porn

[Dibble]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/frank_fisher/2007/07/get_your_tanks_off_our_porn.html

I don't want to scaremonger, but I'm quite worried about this.

If this bill goes through "extreme" porn will be treated like child porn and anyone caught downloading it could face a prison sentence and be placed on the sex offenders register.

However the way the legislation is currently worded what counts as "extreme" porn includes :-

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life.

My reading of this is a fictional video of someone being smothered to death could be illegal, which would be extremely bad news for a company like Lethal Bitches. Possibly any facesitting that suffocated someone could be said to threaten someone's life.

I'm completely against this legislation whatever. I don't see why someone should be sent to jail for doing something that doesn't hurt anyone else.

[aslik]

I was all like "Yeah, no more Tony" until right this second.

CURSE YOU, BROWN! CURSE YOUUU!

[rainbowphoenix42]

Urge to kill, rising...

I believe I speak for a lot of people with the above statement.

[indian_femdom]

Reading that article has seriously pissed me off! This is one of the only pleasures in my life, if they make this stuff illegal I think i'd have to go into rehab or something because there is no way that I could just give it up overnight.
First they restrict driving then smoking, now they are talking about the damaging effects of alchohol and now femdom porn!
Damn these bastards who rule our lives.

[rentaslave1980]

Hey I have just moved to Australia and haven't given laws a thought!!! Is it legal for me to download facesitting and trampling porn here or should I stop?

[Taylor]

Very Disturbing!:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

[ct1900]

Fucking politicians. Libertarian is the only way to go. NOTHING between consenting adults is the business of any government.

[DU007]

Hey I have just moved to Australia and haven't given laws a thought!!! Is it legal for me to download facesitting and trampling porn here or should I stop?

Good move, mate...!!....:D


Don't worry....No legal d/l restrictions on porn in Australia (apart from Underage stuff, of course)....No bastard in Aussie's got anything against looking at pics of a beautiful woman on your face, either....


...Tell you what, though....I'm getting seriously worried about the political correctness of life in Britain....And, this latest Big Brother thing is just too much....!!!!!

.

[andyc2]

We had a very similar thread on this forum some years ago and nothing happened then either. It's just a newspaper story and everyone knows that (Strict Susan's atricles apart) you can NEVER believe speculative stuff in the papers.
I'd advise a bit less concern....

[MrCrypt]

I highly doubt that they would ever do such a thing. But if it were to ever happen here in the US, believe me I would move out.

Taylor, what would you do?

Our government has been getting more religious and strict since George W. moved into office, and it truly makes me sick.

Seems to me that many new governments are taking on a new modo: "If I don't do it, it's not right."

[Dibble]

We had a very similar thread on this forum some years ago and nothing happened then either. It's just a newspaper story and everyone knows that (Strict Susan's atricles apart) you can NEVER believe speculative stuff in the papers.
I'd advise a bit less concern....

I’m sure the newspaper isn’t making it up this time. The bill is already before parliament. There is a link to it on the government site in the article. It’s backed by the government so it will almost certainly be passed. The best we could hope for is that it is amended.

I don't think the bill wasn’t intended to ban the sorts the stuff we are interested in. I think it was meant to stop videos depicting violence against women. The problem is, looking at the way it is worded, I don’t see why a lot of videos we like would be excluded. And while we may think it's ridiculous that anybody would think the sorts of videos were dangerous, I suppose if you are not into them they probably look very different.

[officechair]

I reckon Autumn Wynds should jump on Gordon, Sit on his face before he has a chance to change the law. At least it would push his jaw back

[downunderz]

In NZ, these are banned:

* Child porn of any nature (child = under 18)
* Anything depicting suffering. Real suffering that is, not "pain is pleasure"
* Sex with animals, and .. have to say this ..
* Sex with dead people.

That's the only relevant stuff I can think of.

DZY

[rentaslave1980]

Good move, mate...!!....:D


Don't worry....No legal d/l restrictions on porn in Australia (apart from Underage stuff, of course)....No bastard in Aussie's got anything against looking at pics of a beautiful woman on your face, either....


...Tell you what, though....I'm getting seriously worried about the political correctness of life in Britain....And, this latest Big Brother thing is just too much....!!!!!

.

That is the EXACT reason I have left the UK and started a life here. You can't breathe in England without offending some kind of Religious person who isn't even fucking English anyway!!!

Plus there is sun here!!!!!

[-sitonmyface-]

From what I can tell, it is highly unlikely this bill will go through as it stands. It includes a section making it illegal to store a screen-grab of an "extreme act" (whatever the hell that may be) from a perfectly legal BBFC-rated movie!

Though I will say, if it DOES go through as-is, then yes, from the way it reads, downloading smother porn' will be as illegal as downloading kiddie porn'. :xmad: :xmad:

[Erik]

Here here CT and its a good thing that george W. s term is coming to an end. I like him at one point though....

[iminforajollytime]

The hipocrisy by this government knows no bounds. If this goes through they'd have to ban violent films, video games etc Alcohol is the direct cause of many assaults, murders, rapes but they don't look to ban that. Just vote them out, that would end their power trip.

[seat4women]

Given enough time this uk government will have cctvs in every house to watch what we're all doing; ie smoking a cigarette, watching a naughty film or making sure no beautiful women sit on our faces.
Bah,this country sucks.:xmad:

[ct1900]

I have read some news articles that suggest your country is moving very quickly down an Orwellian road. FIGHT!

[bumrest]

Given enough time this uk government will have cctvs in every house to watch what we're all doing;

I'm surprised they haven't put implants in our heads to monitor our thoughts as well....

[dvs]

i hope they dont take facesitting porn away or make it illegal i think it would be dumb its proabley because the government isnt making money from it we run the united states we should be able to vote on that bill not just the one who are in office

[downunderz]

Don't go nutso on imagined future restrictions in the UK.
Gordon Brown wants to work with the Liberal Democrats, and they've a history of opposing restrictions on what can be said or displayed on the Internet.

Don't expect carte blanche either. Correctly interpreted, the UK government's position remains fairly liberal. If your livelihood depends on this, don't take my word for it. Get in touch with Labour and / or LibDem MPs to find the true position. They don't bite.

DZY

[mewantbootyonface]

Seriously, who cares if it's illegal? Do what you feel is necessary. You could always move to Amsterdam.

[bfrug]

I have read some news articles that suggest your country is moving very quickly down an Orwellian road. FIGHT!

It went past that stage years ago !

[Luther]

Jeez, this is very shocking. I live in UK and wouldn't put it past this rotten governemt to spoil our fun. Better not be passed in government or riots follow. Don't usually post but this has moved me to action :xmad:

[Mistress_Louise]

dont worry guys it'll never happen, gordon is a closet facesitting lover.
he gets wife sarah to smother him all the time i would imagine. I actually went to the same school as gordon in kirkcaldy, and if remember rightly i smothered him under my school skirt along with a lot of the other boyz.
i charged him 50p at the time and he seemed to enjoy and get his moneyz worth and that a gen story !!!

[downunderz]

Did anyone here go to the same school as George B?

(He did go to school..?)

DZY

[agent]

so does that mean ill get put in jail cuz i have 100's of old ninja movies? all together i bet at least 100,000 people die in those movies.

[slave_ben]

i dont think they are trying to stop anyone buying clips from femdom clipstores - it is impossible to stop that anyway.

I imagine the implentation of the law will be (say, for example) that a man who attacks a woman S&M style against her wishes (technically a rape/sexual assualt, but his word against hers so the scumbag would walk free), then the police would have the right to seize his computer for violent films and press charges against him that way and put him on a violent offenders register.

I reckon no-law abiding femdom fan would be affected in anyway.

Also , i doubt that the stuff at (say) Mistress Taylor's clipstore or Mean Bitches etc... are considered hardcore or violent enough to breach that law. The websites in question would most probably horrify the vast majority of visitors here

Any other opinions?

[Strict Susan]

Will Gordon Brown ban facesitting?

Most certainly not. He'll probably tax it.
"Facesitting Added Tax" - "FAT".

[Mistress_Louise]

as usual a very witty reply susan, by the way my hubby's face lit up when i told him i'd facesat gordon brown at kirkcaldy high school. he's never changed all he did then was blurt out a load of crap about not being able to breathe !!!!

[Strict Susan]

.. i'd facesat gordon brown at kirkcaldy high school.

Did you really?!! http://www.theangryinvestor.com/newsmilies/3/respect.gif

[ihope]

I dont think facesitting can or will be classed as extreme porn. I have noticed more violent sex crimes reported on news websites in recent months, even in areas close to where I live in the UK, and virtually everytime they check the persons PC, theres this sort of related porn on there. Like that bloke who slit the girls throat and raped her as she bled, the bbc news site I read I think said police found clips depicting the same thing on his computer. I'm quite sure this is the sort of thing they want to clamp down on. It is far more sinister, and personally, I'm all for it banned - though I think that is pretty impossible to enforce.

[Dman mmphh4]

Bullshit... its all bullshit i tell ya... i fought for this "Land of the free".. if it goes through here in america i am gunna march my fatass right down to capitol hill and Moon president bush looking out his window.. terrible excuse for a president..

[Dman mmphh4]

Oh and if it does go through in the UK.. ladies.. feel free to move right in next to me.. nice neighborhood!!!

[blahblah1980]

illegal... i hope not

[Mistress_Louise]

yep i did susan, he was just another lad at kirkcaldy high. i put his face right under my panties and sat down making him sniff them. he said he'd give me 50p to wrestle him but i knew what he was up to, so i gave him it my pantie crotch right in his face behind a hut one lunchtime, other boys saw me and asked if i'd do it to them as well. not many people can say they have facesat a future prime minister hehe.

Lou
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[bon-viveur]

Brown was educated first at Kirkcaldy West Primary School, and between 1961 and 1967, at Kirkcaldy High School, where he performed well and was placed in an academic fast stream, going up two years.

He suffered a retinal detachment after being kicked in the head during an end-of-term rugby union match at his old school. He was left blind in his left eye, despite treatment including several operations and lying in a darkened room for weeks at a time. He has since been fitted with an artificial eye.[6] Later at Edinburgh, while playing tennis, he noticed the same symptoms in his right eye. After undergoing experimental surgery at Edinburgh Infirmary the eye was saved, ensuring he did not go totally blind.[7]
------
Sure it wasn't because of you facesitting him!

[al-uk]

If this bill goes through "extreme" porn will be treated like child porn and anyone caught downloading it could face a prison sentence and be placed on the sex offenders register.

However the way the legislation is currently worded what counts as "extreme" porn includes :-

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life.

My reading of this is a fictional video of someone being smothered to death could be illegal, which would be extremely bad news for a company like Lethal Bitches. Possibly any facesitting that suffocated someone could be said to threaten someone's life.


I must admit I think we should try to keep facesitting and 'fatal ' smothering fairly separate. Ok we know its just in fun on LB etc, but if some sort of legislation does get passed which outlaws 'snuff' videos I can imagine that the Mary Whitehouses etc of this world will try to include facesitting in this catagory. Hopefully this will not get through!!!

[xxxx]

I don't think most of it would be classed as being so bad it would be banned. If you think of Marco's Smother.de they are not that bad, but may be some Brazilian ones were the person looks more forced in to it might be more dodgy.

Just my thoughts.

xxxx

[ragtnt]

:xmad: everyone speak up, it amazing how everything exploded the last 10 years. they can't stop what already is occuring.:thebird: :thebird:

[simon]

Gordon Brown: Facesitting and now Super Casinos get the chop???

Mind you he might not get much support from other EU countries like the Netherlands

[butch]

I find it egragrious that the government would restrict simulated materials such as smother class porn. The government does not take into account that it is a simulation, not unlike that found in any video game, beween two consenting adults, which can be no way related to child or animal porn whre consent is inherently detached. The message which is sent is that the government cannot trust adults to make proper judgement, when in really it is us who cannot trust the government with even the simplest of exchanges, when they lose millions of tax dollars annually and they themselves do far worse acts then internet pornography and are absolved as if nothing occured. I for one am sick of it!

[butch]

double post sorry!

[Dlox]

Hey Rentalslave, I'm from Australia too. I'm not planning on coming to your house or anything but what state are you from?

[Kandy_Kink]

I highly doubt that they would ever do such a thing. But if it were to ever happen here in the US, believe me I would move out.

Taylor, what would you do?

Our government has been getting more religious and strict since George W. moved into office, and it truly makes me sick.

Seems to me that many new governments are taking on a new modo: "If I don't do it, it's not right."
I believe for some it's more like 'If I do it, it doesn't mean you can'... followed by the sincere apology when they get caught for the momentary lapse in judgment!

Kandy Kink (http://www.clubstiletto.com)

[downunderz]

:xmad: everyone speak up, it amazing how everything exploded the last 10 years. they can't stop what already is occuring.:thebird: :thebird:

What I don't know, as I don't live in the UK, is:
1. The title of the bill before parliament

2. Its contents (which will be available online.)

3. Its stage of passage (1st reading, 2nd, 3rd)

It's probably passed its first reading or you wouldn't be so concerned.
It probably hasn't passed its third or it would be about to be enacted.

So my guess is that it's before some select committee - most of the 2nd reading stage is like this.
These are open to - and welcome - submissions, especially from groups that have a strong interest and are well-informed. You do get your say in the drafting of the law (called 'democracy') and if something comes along that may restrict your livelihood, it's up to you to change it.

You can, but not by chatting here!

[Strict Susan]

It's the "Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill" which was only announced a couple of weeks ago although its contents have been rumoured for some time.

From the BBC, 4th July:
The Bill has yet to be debated by Parliament but there is growing opposition to the clause among a small but vociferous community who say they will be criminalised.

The community, comprising people involved in bondage, domination and sado-masochism (BDSM), has organised a petition against the new legislation, which 1,800 people have signed.

Deborah Hyde, of the pressure group Backlash, argues that perverted predators like Coutts will always exist and no amount of "kneejerk" legislation would prevent them from killing.

'Not good law'

She said the vast majority of BDSM people believed in consensual activities and would not wish to inflict actual harm on their partners. They did not want to view snuff movies or actual cruelty but would be criminalised for watching pornography which was acted out by actors.

Ms Hyde said the government had already widened the description of "extreme" pornography to include some gay porn.

She said: "The government is trying to put us in the same category as rapists, murderers and paedophiles.

"I want to make the world a safer place but this law will not help. It is not good law and it is being rushed through. There is a lot of research which says that giving access to this sort of material actually reduces crimes against women."

Helen and John, who live in the Midlands, are opposed to the legislation. They say they are in a loving relationship which just happens to involve domination and submissiveness.

Helen said the government was overreacting to the Jane Longhurst case: "The supply of BDSM stuff has gone up hugely but there is no killing spree. If all this violent pornography is causing people to go psycho where are all the damaged people?

"Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"

Dr Meg Barker, a senior lecturer in psychology at London South Bank University, said: "The current fears around the possible impact of 'violent pornography' on the internet seem very similar to previous 'moral panics' there have been from penny dreadfuls in Victorian times, to horror comics in the 1950s, to video nasties in the 1980s."

"Images of consensual, or fictitious, acts between adults should not be criminalised," she said, adding that there was evidence that "kinky" and S&M activities were on the increase among "normal" heterosexual couples.

I should also point out that ever since the "Obscene Publications Act" of 1959 it has been an offence to distribute or publish violent pornography. What they are trying to do now is to make it an offence to OWN or POSSESS such material.
I would be inclined to argue that if it wasn't bad enough to be banned from publication previously then it's not going to come under the proposed new regulations anyway - BUT, as with all these things, there's every risk that those who enforce such things will suddenly be fired with a new enthusiasm to prosecute and persecute everything that mildly offends even a small minority.

If you're in the UK and feel strongly that it might put your lifestyle or interests at risk, then do what I've done: WRITE TO YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. It's not too late to have it quashed long before it becomes law if you can persuade enough MPs to vote against it.

[DU007]

If you're in the UK and feel strongly that it might put your lifestyle or interests at risk, then do what I've done: WRITE TO YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. It's not too late to have it quashed long before it becomes law if you can persuade enough MPs to vote against it.


Well said, Ms Susan.

.

[paki_dog]

Like anything, the law will become an Act of Parliament. however the first challenge upon charge will ne bought before the Crown Court and hopefully it will be dismissed as common sense will play a big role. When this happens it will become Case Law for other part of the country. It is a bit like Section 47 assualts (ABH) and Section 18 wounding. When the force is not used to cause permanent injury and has the permission of he "victim" it is not an offence. As long as the injuries are not so severe that the victim was unable to agree to it due to what his state of mind would have been. Don't stress about it. The Crown Court must lay down what "extreme" is in future cases.

[rastaman930]

If you're in the UK and feel strongly that it might put your lifestyle or interests at risk, then do what I've done: WRITE TO YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. It's not too late to have it quashed long before it becomes law if you can persuade enough MPs to vote against it.

Sorry to be the cynic here, but unfortunately, it is in areas like these that democracy most frequently fails. It is too easy for lawmakers to persecute activity for which the majority of people are not personally involved. The "moral majority" does not engage in these activities and finds them offensive, so its easy to persecute facesitting, gay, or otherwise "deviant" activity.

In the end, members of parliament are more concerned with the "moral majority" than they are with protecting an individual's personal choice and liberty. If it wins their party the most votes, then who cares about individual liberty. A political theorist might call this "mobocracy".

[Strict Susan]

NOT necessarily.

It very often depends on the "PR" value of it. IF you can make your activity "politically correct" - a basic freedom ("self-evident truth"????) then quite the reverse is true.

Look, for example, at the complete reversal of attitude towards being gay in the last twenty years or so. OK so it's not yet everything many gay people would want it to be, but it's close to being mainstream and now a totally acceptable way of life. You couldn't have said that in the 1970s or even well after that.

Much of it depends on how the Press see it. I don't believe that many of our activities that HAVE been banned are because the majority (moral or otherwise) wanted it. They were banned because of a lot of noise from a small minority and a significant number of journalists, that's all.
Which is why, for example, I now have to go to France to indulge in my particular hobby of pistol shooting and my guns have had to be exported to a shooting club over there; and why I now have to upset the neighbours next to my own office by going outside and letting cigarette smoke drift across their garden because I can't legally smoke on my own in my own little private enclosure. Madness, both of those, but it's the law.

[hellbentforleatherr]

I
.. have to say this ..
* Sex with dead people.

DZY


How 'bout if they only act like their dead in the bedroom?

[Ride_myFace]

Sorry, you dumb-fucks gave up your guns a while ago.

Now you are slaves to your masters.

We in America know that politicians can only go so far, and then we will rise up. 80 million gun owners possessing 200 million guns.

Not hooligans, just law-abiding (for now) sharp shooters.

I personally won at least 7 guns, with a few thousand rounds of ammo. And I am an amateur.

[downunderz]

It's the "Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill" which was only announced a couple of weeks ago although its contents have been rumoured for some time.

I should also point out that ever since the "Obscene Publications Act" of 1959 it has been an offence to distribute or publish violent pornography. What they are trying to do now is to make it an offence to OWN or POSSESS such material.
I would be inclined to argue that if it wasn't bad enough to be banned from publication previously then it's not going to come under the proposed new regulations anyway - BUT, as with all these things, there's every risk that those who enforce such things will suddenly be fired with a new enthusiasm to prosecute and persecute everything that mildly offends even a small minority.

If you're in the UK and feel strongly that it might put your lifestyle or interests at risk, then do what I've done: WRITE TO YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. It's not too late to have it quashed long before it becomes law if you can persuade enough MPs to vote against it.

Where to from here?

On its own, writing to your MP has some impact; less than you'd like unless you follow through with other measures. Do it anyway.
Scotland, Wales and NI may not be covered by this, or the coverage may be partial. (There's a much milder bill before the Scottish Parliament right now.) So check.

Follow-through measures include:
1. Making personal contact with your MP. This is easier if you represent a group or are a producer.

2. Organize a meeting at which your MP will talk to your group.

The aim of 1 and 2 is to win support, not pick a fight. You have to build positive relationships, no matter how opposed your MP may seem. He/she will carry that impression away, and that's what counts.

[Slave_Marcus]

Strict Susan is correct. Individuals are already prosecuted every year under existing law (obscene publications act), for the production of extreme material. This legislation is being extended to possession on the basis it has been physically impossible to convict the producers in some cases. The idea is to starve demand and consequently supply.

Clearly there is confusion over the material that will be effected and what is deemed extreme (the law is neccessarily vague in order for it to be successfully applied). This is for extremely sick material - the kind we would all find offensive - and is already excluded by Visa (who wouldn't knowingly bill it) and already filtered out by all recognised adult 3rd party billing processors (e.g. CCBill). In this respect, the law should not be seen as censorship (and any article which conveys it as such is wrong). Rightly or wrongly, it is a law which gives Police license to convict those that are seen as a danger to society and stamp out production in the process.

Obviously there is lack of trust in most governments and the vagueness of the law leads to people asking what is included. The only way I know to convey this is cost to the government - probably the biggest factor when it comes to implementing any kind of law. To this end, the regulatory assessment documents which accompany the bill when under consideration by parliament, show cost estimates. The assoicated costs are clearly a big consideration for MPs when considering the law. So with fear of being accused of needing to get out more, here are the estimated costs for the proposed new legislation....

The first point to make is the government are only projecting 30 prosecutions per year under the new law. That in itself should depict the level of extremity here and also the fact this isn't censorship legislation. For a country of 60 million people, that's a drop in the ocean and clearly only includes those who we might describe as 'sick'. For the 30 arrests per year, the annual costs break down as follows (costs in GBP - multiply values by 2 for approx. USD equavalent):-

Police Arrest and Charge - £10,890
Crown Prosecution Service -£65,192
Legal Aid Costs - £127,935
Courts - £200,220
Sub Total - £404,237

(the above assumes a worst case scenario whereby all defendants apply for legal aid).

So the figure of 30 arrests per year should go some way to convincing people we are talking about the most extreme content possible here. If we are going to ask whether the government might decide to extend this legislation into some kind of censorship and go after even the harmless content, even factoring in lack of government trust I find it very unlikely. It costs them almost half a million pounds per year (or approx. one million dollars) just to convict 30 people. Any future internet censorship process for safe content is far more likely to be applied at producer cost, rather than taxpayer cost.

All things considered and appreciating the fact this is for sick content (that is already illegal) and invididuals, I'm in favour of the new law.

Cheers All,

Marcus

[ladychrista]

Hey I have just moved to Australia and haven't given laws a thought!!! Is it legal for me to download facesitting and trampling porn here or should I stop?


lol...i have always wanted to move to australia

[downunderz]

Strict Susan is correct. Individuals are already prosecuted every year under existing law (obscene publications act), for the production of extreme material. This legislation is being extended to possession on the basis it has been physically impossible to convict the producers in some cases. The idea is to starve demand and consequently supply.

>>SNIP<<

All things considered and appreciating the fact this is for sick content (that is already illegal) and invididuals, I'm in favour of the new law.

Cheers All,

Marcus

That makes sense.

If Marcus has it right, anything you see on this forum is and will be legal.

Interesting, though, how 'criminals' and 'immigration' are linked in the Bill.

[Slave_Marcus]

That makes sense.

If Marcus has it right, anything you see on this forum is and will be legal.

Interesting, though, how 'criminals' and 'immigration' are linked in the Bill.

Yes Downunderz I thought that an odd association at first, although now it doesn't seem so strange to me. In many ways it only serves to strengthen what I was saying previously about those seen as a serious danger to society.

Overall the general ethos of the bill as a whole appears to be protecting the public from violent offenders. The violent pornography aspect to this appears to come under the "strengthen the protection of the public from violent offenders" category. The immigration aspect is merely an extension to that public safety aspect whereby the government wishes to "ensure that the UK does not provide a safe haven for foreign criminals and terrorists". In other words, convicting existing violent offenders more effectively and, not letting more offenders onto the island.

[Strict Susan]

It's all down to the definition of "obscene" and how it's applied.

Anything published (in any form) is only obscene: "if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it." That's the current legal definition and as far as I know there are no plans to change it.

Or, to put it in plain English as it's currently interpreted by (most) legal experts, it's illegal if it is (a) likely to encourage someone to do something they would not otherwise have done and which they might otherwise have found immoral, and (b) readily available to such people.
Also, this does NOT apply if the item, as a whole, is not generally intended to do this (e.g. a work of art such as a novel or even a picture where the "obscene" part of it is incidental to the rest of the art and is not the basis of the rest of it).

On the basis of that, it would not under ANY existing or proposed legislation be illegal to publish, acquire or own any material on any subject in which everyone who saw it or was likely to see it already had an interest in that subject EVEN IF other people might find it offensive UNLESS the subject itself was specifically against the law AND the material was likely to encourage them to break the law. Further, if the material does not in any way encourage anyone to take part in activity considered by some as immoral, then it doesn't come under the legislation anyway.

So, to put it simply as basic examples:
(1) facesitting is not illegal. If you have an interest in it and aren't showing it to anyone else who doesn't yet have an interest in it, then you can't be breaking the law. Even "forced facesitting" comes under this category, unless it is depicted as causing death or injury.
(2) damaging another person through violence is illegal. If you publish such material you are already breaking the law if there is a sexual element in it; in the future (if this bill is passed), you will be breaking the law if you possess such material.
(3) if you include either of the above in any broader subject (such as a book or a film) that deals primarily with another subject, you won't be breaking the law either to publish or possess it.

An even simpler example, which brings it back to the specific case that has promoted this particular part of the proposed new legislation: if the material implies you get a sexual thrill from strangling someone, forget it.

Did anyone follow any of that? I hope so. I checked this whole matter with a solicitor yesterday. He finished by saying "I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to try and stop facesitting sites, among other things."

I hope he's right.

[Slave_Marcus]

I see what you are saying Susan and personally I'm a little wary of solicitors when it comes to this type of law. They will be more than happy to define things for you based on the actual written law and take their money but, ultimately, this law is so broad they will never say anything is actually safe.

For example, you can't say facesitting would be safe when it comes to mere definitions because the definition is 'threaten to cause', rather than cause. In many cases of facesitting, it involves breath control. The guy who killed Longhurst - the catalyst for the possession law - his defence was that it was simply breath control that went wrong.

So all in all, I think attempting to look at definitions and decide what's safe or what's not safe is the wrong road to go down. I doubt very much whether members of parliament will cry tears into their pillows at night if all this uncertainty did effect all porn, of any nature. So we need to be a bit careful that in fighting what we are wrongly (in my view) taking as censorship, we are actually doing the governments job for them through causing uncertainty.

Ultimately people need to be made aware the new law is not censorship, the law already existed as censorship but was aimed at producers. So nobody is removing the rights of anyone to watch anything - the fact is the material in question shouldn't be there to watch in the first place. The reason it was there is because in most cases, the producers don't reside in the UK and neither are the ISPs. This is 'extreme' (rather than obscene) material and that means looking at the content and being realistic about it. Nobody is ever going to look at a video of a woman sitting on a guys face and see it as extreme at all, certainly not in the many hundreds of videos I've seen to date. It would be laughable to think so. We've certainly been freely producing out of the UK now for over 4 years I think. We could have been convicted under existing law.

We need to be sensible and realise this is major criminal law and this is a licence to convict sick individuals who are seen as a danger to society at large. The context of the law, the bill the law resides in, and the cost estimates of 30 convictions per year back this up in my view. As I said before, even taking into account lack of trust in the government, it's simply not financially viable to convict large numbers of people under a possession law, under the guise of censorship. The only thing that would justify that spending would be if these individuals were seen as a danger to society....that's the best way of interpreting the law.