UK Says You Can't Have Some Kinds Of Porn, But It Determines What Kinds
from the confusing-much? dept
The Register is covering the rather confusing porn guidelines in the UK, which add certain types of porn to the list of what is illegal to possess. Plenty of countries have laws against possession of child porn, but the UK is extending that to cover images that are "pornographic, grossly offensive and portray activity that threatens harm to life or limb, or involves sex with a corpse or animal." Of course, some of that is open to interpretation -- and TheReg points out that plenty of movies that were approved for viewing in the UK contain footage that probably meets those criteria. The question, then, is, if you have an offending still image from a legal UK video, do you run afoul of these guidelines? Also, oddly, the law says that you're okay if you delete an image -- but not okay if you can retrieve it after deleting. While, undoubtedly, this law is well-intended, it seems to be quite vague and it's difficult to see what public benefit it serves. If the concern is about the harm done in the making of such porn, why not go after the pornographers, rather than the possessors?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's actually incredibly clear, and not as "open to ibnterpretation" as you make out. Perhaps if you read the 8 page information PDF supplied you'd know this, instead of just reading an article written by a rather disreputable news publisher. There are rather detailed descriptions of what is meant by all relevant terms that might, on the face of it, by someone who hasn't bothered to do any research, be ambiguous.
"Also, oddly, the law says that you're okay if you delete an image -- but not okay if you can retrieve it after deleting"
No, Mike, no it doesn't.
It says that it's fine if you delete it, but not if "where a person is shown to have intended to remain in control of an image even though he has deleted it".
That isn't quite the same as it not being ok if it's convievable that the image could be retrieved; are you familiar with the concept of intent, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously dude - wtf ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. There are three elements to the offence. An image must come within the terms of all
three elements before it will fall foul of the offence.
2. Those elements are:
- 1. That the image is pornographic;
- 2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character, and
- 3. That the image portrays in an explicit and realistic way, one of the following extreme acts:
- - a. An act which threatens a person’s life;
- - b. An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breast or genitals;
- - c. An act involving sexual interference with a human corpse,
- - d. A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the people and animals portrayed were real.
This doesn't leave room for interpretation, since an image must meet ALL THREE points.
(And no, I don't know HTML code)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet more evidence that you didn't bother to read the source, instead just going through the rather poorly written Register article. They even answer this very question in the FAQ towards the end of the PDF.
Your standards are definitely slipping, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmmm
Technically they are dead so it's having sex with a corpse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Also, oddly, the law says that you're okay if you delete an image -- but not okay if you can retrieve it after deleting"
No, Mike, no it doesn't.
It says that it's fine if you delete it, but not if "where a person is shown to have intended to remain in control of an image even though he has deleted it".
AC #2 it seems as though you misunderstand what the law is saying itself. Proving someone's intent without physical evidence or action is unprovable. Short of using my imagination, I can't construct a scenario where one could accomplish such a feat.
It seems to me that "where a person is shown to have intended to remain in control of [the] image" suggests the individual in question would have the means to *retrieve* the image with some software after deleting it from regular access. Finding such software or observing the individual using this software, maybe from reading a log outside of actual sight, is a way to "show" that the individual intended on "remaining in control." Therefore Mike's wording suggesting retrieval being punishable should be maintained as it's quite accurate.
I myself haven't read the law or even the article from The Register for that matter. I trust you enough to have gathered the actual statement yourself, as you seemed intent on collapsing Mike's article and so needed concrete evidence to its contrary (although in the end it seems quite identical).
Personally I think Mike's article is fine and I'm glad I caught it, it's crazy to be reminded of the extreme kinds of pornography in the world.
And Vampire sex is always okay..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Err, isn't that a tautological definition of sex? Humans were animals, last I checked, and I definitely don't -feel- like a mineral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as demand remains high, there will be a supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about rule 34?
http://xkcd.com/305
http://everything2.com/title/Rule%252034
http://www.urbandictionary .com/define.php?term=Rule%2034
if it exists, there is a porn of it. there are no exceptions.
regulating pr0n is physically impossible thanks to rule 34.
so, furries are now illegal? does that mean we can hunt them now? japanese guro and tentacle porn is illegal now too? the brits should just invade japan then, it would be cheaper and easier than trying to bust people that are into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what about rule 34?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]