Would this video be ilegal under the new porn laws??

[johnboy]

Well....would this fall foul of the extreme porn laws due to come into effect in Jan 09?

From a pure matter of fact point of view, I think it would have to, but I really cant see any sensible jury describing this as extreme porn? If anything, it looks really cool, but there are elements which I suppose the new law would make illegal .....??

http://www.actiongirls.com/a/trailer/actiongirls-volume-5-stp_Quicktime-small.mov

[mOBSCENE]

No.

It's a bit like crossbowslags/paintballsplatteredbabes, but with better budget, better babes, better toys, better music - better everything really :)

[Johnny Kleenexxx]

No.

It's a bit like crossbowslags/paintballsplatteredbabes, but with better budget, better babes, better toys, better music - better everything really :)

LOL

[voice220]

That law some of the worst tyrannical shit ever to come out of a human. :minister:

[Guest]

That law some of the worst tyrannical shit ever to come out of a human. :minister:

Don't be silly.

[johnboy]

No.

It's a bit like crossbowslags/paintballsplatteredbabes, but with better budget, better babes, better toys, better music - better everything really :)

Well according to the wording of the legislation, any still image or video that appears to threaten a persons life or genitals and all that other malarky, and provided the image / video has been produced for sexual arousal, then it will become illegal,..

so in that Video, you have a naked girl (the one with the pink bunny girl ears) apparently being shot. (it's an assumption, someone points a gun at her, she runs off, gun goes off, and she falls to the ground (granted, she could have just tripped over :-) ), there's also a scene where a couple of guys have a fire thrower turned on them by some naked or semi naked chick.. that would certainly appear to be life threatening and as it is material produced for an adult paysite, there can be no question that the intention of the content is for sexual arousal...

There you go m'lrd, it's an open and shut case and all actiongirls.com staff should go straight to Jail, do not pass go or anything else...

[mOBSCENE]

Well according to the wording of the legislation, any still image or video that appears to threaten a persons life or genitals and all that other malarky, and provided the image / video has been produced for sexual arousal, then it will become illegal,..



It also needs to be an "explicit and realistic" depiction and at the same time "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".

If it was just the latter bit, DVT's sites could well become illegal :)

[johnboy]

It also needs to be an "explicit and realistic" depiction and at the same time "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".

If it was just the latter bit, DVT's sites could well become illegal :)

Good point well made

[dvtimes]

No.

It's a bit like crossbowslags/paintballsplatteredbabes, but with better budget, better babes, better toys, better music - better everything really :)

while you say that in jest it was this site that inspired me to do my sites.

of couse these films are amazing.

[dvtimes]

and to be honest if they bring in laws that makes any of my content, you know what, f*ck them.

i will not remove it, so they can put me in prison. thats fine. to be honest the way the heating and food codsts are going up i think i will be better off spending winter in proson.

[dvtimes]

by the way ccbill already have rules set in place to be honest.

if i remember no blood, guns must not be aimed at the model and stuff like that.

but as these films are clearly fun and not real then its ok.

lets face it if such content became illigall in the uk then most films would be baned.

in truth i suspect that the cps will not prosecute bondage sites or those with such pics on there computer. mainly as they will not want to loose any case or risk loosing any case.

i would suspect the cps will only use this to charge people who have rape pics and such like on the computer. ie if the police arest somone on rape or belived rape and they have such content, then at least they can charge them with somthing.

[jobbydealer]

Sorry I've not been around for a while (not that you've missed me) but I've been busy.

Tonight I decided to look at this new EXTREME law for the first time and see if anything 'pops out'.

Before I’ll begin I’ll qualify by saying that this is a ‘first pass’ and a lot needs to be discussed - so SEEK LEGAL ADVICE - and good luck when you do :)

The image to fail the test must meet TWO criteria:

Section 63:

A new offence of possessing an extreme pornographic image.

It states that an image is deemed to be extreme if it is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

AND

It portrays, in an explicit and realistic way (must be both)

Any of the following:

A. Threatens life

B. Results/likely to result in serious injury to anus/breast or genitals

C. Human corpse

D. Animal Sex (just in case you’re really perverted DEAD or alive)

With the proviso that a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

Taking this piece of Section 64:
Extracts from a classified works are NOT exempt...Assumed extracted...purposes of sexual arousal.

Straight off the bat two things stand out:

Possessing

Reasonable Person
For the first time under a law concerned with obscenity (NOT MINORS) possession is a crime. The VRA and OPA clearly state that an offence is only committed if: VRA/SUPPLY, OPA/PUBLISHED.

This law puts the onus on buyer AND/OR seller.

Also for the first time under a law concerned with obscenity the Court may take the stance of a Reasonable Person, which in effect means that the Judge may direct the jury as to what a reasonable person may think.

By using the Reasonable Person the Government can now expand upon the term obscenity (which is something that is likely to deprave and corrupt) and include two new terms, those being grossly offensive and disgusting.

This begs the question what is wrong with the term indecent and why would it not stand on four legs with grossly offensive and/or disgusting. Clearly we now have three standards under UK law:

Obscenity
Grossly offensive or disgusting
Indecency

The problem from the Governments side is that the new terms of grossly offensive and disgusting have got to be explained in Court albeit with the Reasonable Person on their side, but it would seem that should you wish to produce a scat video you are still protected as a publisher by the OPA so may take your day in court.

Personally, I think this law makes sense. It may be open to challenge but reading between the lines I think that the OPA still protects the common or garden porn publisher from the wrath of the Christian sects.

As an aside and what has been missed by many is that the sentence for an OPA Sec 2 offence has now been raised from 3 to 5 years!

A crackerjack pencil to the person who can tell me when the last successful SEC 2 prosecution was under the OPA.

[mOBSCENE]

Crackerjack!

[dvtimes]

Sorry I've not been around for a while (not that you've missed me) but I've been busy.

Tonight I decided to look at this new EXTREME law for the first time and see if anything 'pops out'.

Before I’ll begin I’ll qualify by saying that this is a ‘first pass’ and a lot needs to be discussed - so SEEK LEGAL ADVICE - and good luck when you do :)

The image to fail the test must meet TWO criteria:

Section 63:

A new offence of possessing an extreme pornographic image.

It states that an image is deemed to be extreme if it is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

AND

It portrays, in an explicit and realistic way (must be both)

Any of the following:

A. Threatens life

B. Results/likely to result in serious injury to anus/breast or genitals

C. Human corpse

D. Animal Sex (just in case you’re really perverted DEAD or alive)

With the proviso that a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

Taking this piece of Section 64:
Extracts from a classified works are NOT exempt...Assumed extracted...purposes of sexual arousal.

Straight off the bat two things stand out:

Possessing

Reasonable Person
For the first time under a law concerned with obscenity (NOT MINORS) possession is a crime. The VRA and OPA clearly state that an offence is only committed if: VRA/SUPPLY, OPA/PUBLISHED.

This law puts the onus on buyer AND/OR seller.

Also for the first time under a law concerned with obscenity the Court may take the stance of a Reasonable Person, which in effect means that the Judge may direct the jury as to what a reasonable person may think.

By using the Reasonable Person the Government can now expand upon the term obscenity (which is something that is likely to deprave and corrupt) and include two new terms, those being grossly offensive and disgusting.

This begs the question what is wrong with the term indecent and why would it not stand on four legs with grossly offensive and/or disgusting. Clearly we now have three standards under UK law:

Obscenity
Grossly offensive or disgusting
Indecency

The problem from the Governments side is that the new terms of grossly offensive and disgusting have got to be explained in Court albeit with the Reasonable Person on their side, but it would seem that should you wish to produce a scat video you are still protected as a publisher by the OPA so may take your day in court.

Personally, I think this law makes sense. It may be open to challenge but reading between the lines I think that the OPA still protects the common or garden porn publisher from the wrath of the Christian sects.

As an aside and what has been missed by many is that the sentence for an OPA Sec 2 offence has now been raised from 3 to 5 years!

A crackerjack pencil to the person who can tell me when the last successful SEC 2 prosecution was under the OPA.

and this is the main problem "an image is deemed to be extreme if it is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."

You see its why the cps would not want standered porn (stuff on real porn sites) go to court as then it becomes a gamble as the problem they have is that you will need a jury that most if not all the people would find stuff offensive.

You see its great if your jury is made up of 90 year old christan bible bashers, but if its made up f say builders, shop workers and so on, who are not remotly bothered by such and a decent barrester stands up and starts compaing pics to such as nighmaire on elme street films you aint got much of a case, and are going to look daft in the papers.

the cps will only wish to priosecute those with such as real rape pics and such like on there computer.

otherwise you will end up with a new lady chatalees lover trial on your hands.