State should not be involved in what interests us behind closed doors, except to protect the vulnerable. There is no evidence I've seen which shows a need for this law. It seems to me to be a law designed to collar people when police find "undesirable" people with pictures not quite illegal.

A reality of human nature is that we find situations in film and TV appealing, even though they might disgust us in real life (the fil hostal for example shows gratuitous torture scenes) but I doubt very much that these will be banned from public viewing. Will some one who has an extensive 'horror and gore' collection of DVD's be penalised as well? I agree that some pornography is disturbing and some sexual practice can leave many to feel shocked or scared, however it is up to the discretion of the individual whether they choose to view it. some areas are right to be banned as we need some moderation of what is acceptable, but the internet will always be a haven for people to obtain things that they are not allowed. I think one thing this country does well is deal with people who break these laws, dont isolate the thousands of people who enjoy staged sexual acts (morally is it any worse than paintballing, during this activity we are imaging a battle scenario in which people would be killed in real life, just a thought)

I don't understand what positives can come out of this. While I don't agree that everyone who views extreme porn will go out and commit violent acts, I do believe that a minority is very capable of such a thing. I also believe that when we are exposed to violence, torture and alike, we become desensitized to it. This is a very serious problem in society today, with thugs showing a complete lack of compassion and just accepting violence as matter of fact.

Besides, why would any civil person wish to view such material anyway and why should we pander to their anti-social tastes? I'm against this repeal and would in fact like to see stricter laws on extreme pornography.

I think you'll find enough 'violence, torture and alike' at your local cinema. Should this be banned? I think you'll find that the vast majority people who engage in the kinds of acts this law bans the recording of (but which are perfectly legal acts between consenting adults) have a greater respect for personal boundaries and ensuring consent that a lot of 'normal' people.

You only have to look at the history of torture through the ages to see that there is no correlation between the availability of violent recorded material and the practise of torture. Society now is certainly a lot less violent than it was in the middle ages when torture was considered perfectly acceptable.

Civil liberties is about individuals rights to do what they consider acceptable, as long as it doesn't harm others. It is not about trying to stop other people doing things that you do not understand.

This piece of law criminalises harmless citizens for possessing images of legal activities. It is unnecessary and ill advised an does not achieve what it is intended to by way of increasing safety for anyone. I think it was a token gesture from a government that didn't want to commit to doing something effective about abuse. Images of actual abuse are already covered under the laws which criminalise people for witholding evidence of a crime.

Please repeal the parts of the extreme porn ban which relate to consensual activities between adults.

In a personal capacity

Dennis Queen (aka Clair Lewis)

(also National Convenor of CAAN www.caan.org.uk who will be submitting something more detailed very soon to this consultation.)

 To ban the expression of a thought or taste or opinion is the same thing as to ban the thought, taste or opinion itself.
 Without original and unusual thoughts, tastes and opinions, no human progress is possible.
 This truly is a law for the Dark Ages.

There are a number of issues with this law that makes it impractical and unfair.

Primarily it was based on the assumption that viewing these images would make people want to re-enact them. The majority opinion of research into this disagrees with that assumption.

The act makes it a criminal offence to possess (or simply view) images of acts that are perfectly legal between consenting adults. This also has safety implications for people that do enjoy some activities covered by this law - for example, people that enjoy the (legal) act of rope bondage are now unable to view graphical instructions on how to safely carry this about.

Another problematic aspect is that the law is also very vague, with no clarification to what exactly is legal or illegal to look at. An extreme image is defined as something that is 'grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character', but this is a subjective opinion - some people find the Sun's page three to be grossly offensive, disgusting and of obscene character. Therefore there is no way for a citizen to know when they're breaking this law.

The most disturbing aspect is that scenes from films with a BBFC rating are exempt when watched as part of the film, but if seen as an excerpt could be illegal if 'it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal'. So if you extract the scene because you find it arousing, it's a criminal offence. If you extract it for academic study or don't find it arousing, then you're within the law.
This essential criminalises people for the way they think about something.

It is grossly illiberal for it to be illegal to possess pictures or videos of consensual sexual acts between adults.

There is absolutely no evidence that viewing this type of material leads people to commit crimes, and no reason at all why images of BDSM or similar acts should be any more damaging than the incredible levels of violence in many modern TV programs and films.

This law does nothing apart from needlessly criminalising hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, and significantly reducing the right to freedom of expression. It is, in effect, the essence of the erosion of civil liberties under labour.

For a government concerned with human right and civil liberties, repeal of this legislation is paramount.

It is unjust, unnecessary, and contravenes the ECHR. The Labour government acted disgracefully and shamelessly in pushing this through Parliament, from the intital consultation (an exercise in cynicism and incoherence), through to the Bill's passage through the Houses (where a discredited and scientifically worthless 'Rapid Evidence Assessment' appeared at the last minute from a government-sponsorred anti-porn campaigner).

This legislation represents the previous government at its absolute worst: Cynical, manipulative, brutally authoritarian, populist, anti-democratic, vindicitive, spiteful, and breathlessly arrogant. Repeal of this law would therefore represent a both a symbolic rejection of the values of New Labour and a practical measure to restore civil liberties in the UK.

Please, repeal this nonsensical law. I think everything has already been covered in previous comments, but in short:

How can it be illegal to have a photograph of something, but legal to DO it?
How can it be illegal to possess a clip of a film, but legal to possess the whole film?
Pictures of bestiality do no harm, that seems like it was just added on there as an afterthought.

Looking at pictures does no harm.

What worries me most about this law is the ambiguity of its wording, particularly where it comes to the idea of "possession." There is no clear description of what constitutes this. Is it having the image/video on your hard drive, easily available to access, or could having the images in your temporary internet files still count as "possession?"

If this coalition really wants to prove that it is here to protect our civil liberties, repealing laws like this are definitely the place to start. This law was a knee-jerk reaction to the paranoia of a small number of people and was clearly never completely scrutinised and thought-through.

@shanethewolf:

"Besides, why would any civil person wish to view such material anyway and why should we pander to their anti-social tastes?"

What about people who practice S&M (who may both record their own private acts, and look at websites, whether it's commercial porn, or just images on forums)? How can what people do in private be anti-social?

The law criminalises images of consensual acts, including those depicted as consensual, so your comments about violence and torture are unfair I feel. But, if speculations of being desensitized is a justification for this law, do you really think that all depictions of violence, in films, news, etc, should be illegal to even possess? If not, why pick on a minority of people on what they do or look at?

The whole argument of "But why would anyone want to do that" or "Why should we care about those kinds of people" are exactly the sort of arguments that lead us to illiberal laws. If you want to criminalise someone, you have to argue why this is needed.

"and would in fact like to see stricter laws on extreme pornography."

Such as? Note, this law even applies if a couple film themselves in the bedroom - something that many other people are free to do as part of their sex life.

It was a dark day indeed when this law was passed. As long as sex is agreed by both/all parties involved and all are of legal age then what right has the goverment got to try to control peoples sex lives. One nutter watched a clip and then raped some one; he would have done it anyway, he is a nutter.

This law needs to be repealed. We live in an age were all the unjust laws attacking homosexuals have been ripped down, lets not find a new sexual minority to treat as they were.

I think it's absurd that it's ok to watch lasers cut people up into small chunks and mutilate them (Film: Resident Evil), but legal consensual activities are illegal to watch in recordings.

I share a concern that a tiny minority of people may be influenced to do non consensual and terrible things from watching the material in question, but we don't seem to take an extreme censorship approach to people being stabbed in films.

I don't see why a tiny and mentally ill minority should mean the criminalisation of regular people engaged in consensual acts.

Please repeal this law. Unfortunately sexual freedoms are often lost under the "civil liberties" umbrella, which I think is a shame. It's not about "freedom to look at porn", but freedom for consenting adults to not be locked up for what they do in private, including making or viewing images.

See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/[…]/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wik[…]ce_and_Immigration_Act_2008 .

Even if there should be restrictions on publication of some images, there is no justification for criminalising the viewer (where is the victim?), and the law applies to images that are never published (e.g., consenting adults taking photos of their own acts in the bedroom).

Criminalising staged acts is a particular concern, but even for actual acts, the definitions have left many of those in the BDSM community unclear as to what images may or may not be illegal. Even if an act is risky, that is no argument for criminalising a depiction of it - we do not criminalise images of horseriding or mountain climbing. Even for laws against things like drugs, it's the act that is criminalised; no one would suggest criminalising possession of depictions of drugs! Most of the arguments for this law were anti-porn arguments that would apply to all sexual images, and it is unfair to target and stigmatise those who practice and view "violent" consensual sex, when criminalising all sexual images would never be supported (I hope!) in this country.

The Rapid Evidence Assessment was deemed by 40 academics to be "extremely poor, based on contested findings and accumulated results... one-sided and simply ignores the considerable research tradition into "extreme" (be they violent or sexually explicit) materials..." (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/acad_statement.html)

The defence for "consensual acts" (Section 66) is limited to those who "directly participated", and doesn't even include the person taking the photo.

Some possible amendments that could be used include:

* http://www.publications.parliament.uk/[…]/ml041-iib.htm (Clause 63: restricting the law to images where a sexual offence is committed.)

* http://www.publications.parliament.uk/[…]/ml016-id.htm (Clause 113, 114, 115: restricting the law to actual acts, rather than realistic portrayals.)

* http://www.publications.parliament.uk/[…]/pb0150901m.279-285.html (Amendments 3-10: restricting the law to actual acts; and 179: allowing a defence of reasonably believing that no one in the image was made to act against their will.)

* http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?page_id=82

There are no known cases involving non-consenting participants (much like "snuff films") anyway, but such hypothetical images could still remain illegal if the law were amended. Even having it as a defence (with the burden of proof on the defendant) would be at least something!

The coalition Government may fear adverse political consequences from repealing such a law, but there seems little evidence of this being a problem. Whilst some issus like drugs or "video nasties" have involved media uproars, there was no uproar associated with this law. Whilst some columnists supported it, many others criticised it ( http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/[…]/index.php?title=Template:Media ). If this law was amended or repealed in a larger Freedom Act, it seems doubtful that this law would get any significant special attention.

Amending the law to only cover non-consensual acts would still give Liz Longhurst her law, whilst curing the problems of this law.

How can what people do in the privacy of their own homes - especially as part of a loving, healthy relationship - be dangerous to others?

How can 'consensual' be wrong?

How can something that is legal to do be illegal when possessed as a photograph?

How can a film be legal but a still taken from it be illegal?

I wanted to take some still from a film but did not as I was worried they may be illegal. The film in question is a 15 CERTIFICATE COMEDY.

Illogical, vague and sexually discriminatory, Section 63 of the CJIA 2008 should be repealed.

I fully support the repeal of this bad law.

(1) This law did not outlaw any new activities, it merely made it illegal to own a photograph of people doing something legal - including photos of yourself!

(2) People like Jacqui Smith, Martin Salter (ex MP Reading) and Andy Burnham really pushed this hard - calling the "activities depicted" "yucky" yet I am sure ot is possible to find people who don't like to think about or see activities such as torture, anal sex, wrestling, ... yet thet dont' get the ability to stop pictures of these activities being owned.

This law was made by some religious zealots in favour of creeping censorship. If they'd been free to carry on as they were, one wouldn't have been able to watch anything remotely challenging. Please repeal this unnecessary nonsense immediately.

The only restriction on simple personal possession of ANY visiual material should be that depicting REAL abuse of REAL children, and NOTHING else.

I agree with this. Violent porn, if fictional, does not harm anybody. This law was formed, as far as I know, simply due to one case of rape and murder in which the perpetrator was a violent porn addict. Why must the government continue to judge the entire country on the actions of single people?

In the Government consultation paper (August 2005), the sole justification for the ban was that politicians believed "the material... would be abhorrent to most people and has no place in our society." The main purpose of the legislation seems to have been to draw the votes of Mail readers away from the Opposition. Curiously, the material to be banned had a secure place in every Continental society.

However, the summary of responses to the consultation (August 2006) said: "the Conservative Party... suggested that the laws go further" in categorising offences, even proposing that "people convicted of accessing the proscribed material by means of a credit card should be disqualified from possessing a credit card for a certain term." So I reckon Mr Clegg will find it near-impossible to persuade the Tories to offer any real freedom.

Making possession of photos or video illegal should only be used to protect the vulnerable. It should not be used to restrict anything that only involves consenting adults, even if their actions are offensive to most people.

I agree that the Government should repeal this ill thought-out law.

In the opinion of many, it violates article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & is likely to get the Government into trouble (& expense) because of this if it remains. If this Government want stick up for civil liberties & human rights, this law needs to go.

Appreciation (or not) of such "extreme" images is a purely a matter of taste. As long as images are consensual, do not contain children & are not witheld evidence of a crime I can see no justification for keeping this law. It essentally introduces 'thought crime' as a reality in British law, which has to be a bad thing.

Consenting adults may engage in these activites legaly but if they possess a photo they're criminals? It makes no sense at all...

Introduced as a knee-jerk reaction after Graham Coutts tried using the defense of "the porn made me do it" after he killed Jane Longhurst (he was rightly found guilty of murder, there was clearly no defense for what he had done), this law was always badly thought out & would clearly not protect anyone in her situation.

The fact that it can also criminalise posession of images or scenes taken from films already approved by the BBFC is the final insult. Individual police officers are obviously less well qualifed to make these distinctions than the BBFC. The officers I have spoken to about it feel that there is no point in having this law as the definitions are so vaugue that they wouldn't want to try to make any such distinction.

This is thought crime. Those who drafted this law thought they knew better than the people. Thought that if you looked at naughty pictures you did naughty things. Thought that activity that is legal in real life isn't legal in graphic form.This is a ridiculous nonsense knee jerk law that is wrong in principal and won't work in practice.

I fully support the laws now in place that protect the innocent from abuse.

Actually section 63 etal may be a, didn't think at all crime!

With regards to the notion of 'dangerous images' and its consequences for adults with an interest in bondage/fetish orientated consensual sex, this was a genuinely oppressive law that potentially and needlessly criminalised thousands of entirely harmless people. The essential issues are as follows:

1) Vagueness. I am to this day unclear if viewing images of consensual adults engaged in bondage activity constitutes breaking the law. The intent seems to be to crack down on the most 'extreme' pornography, but is written in ways that potentially allow a jury to decide what the law really is. Needless to say given the generally private, intimate nature of one's sexual interests and the stigma attached, we all understand that in all likelihood the damage is done when the charge is pressed. If people do not know where they stand then the law cannot be followed and prosecutions are more akin to persecutions. It is simply poor lawmaking.

2. 'Possession'. Due to the large amounts of 'kinky' and rough pornography being produced, if you are searching for pornography in general it is very difficult to avoid exposure to an image that may technically be illegal, given the vagueness of the law. As many will know it is entirely possible, if rare, unfortunately to come across an image that is clearly illegal. Simply because in a public sphere anyone can upload an image others do not want to see. The law does not seem to understand this and the nature of the Internet and computers in general. Accusing someone of 'possessing' an image they didn't want to see and didn't intentionally 'save' is like accusing someone of stealing a car that they see passing them in the street. The state needs to exercise some common sense.

3) Responsibility. The law was bought in because of the actions of one convicted murderer. I am deeply uncomfortable with the fact that the state has effectively allowed a murderer to have such influence over law. It should be clear to most reasonable adults that there is no excuse for his actions. The implication of this law has actually provided him with one. Indeed the message is that the state believes that viewing certain images can turn any citizen into a killer. This is deeply naive and encourages people not to take responsibility for their own actions.

4) Implications for democracy. Of course we all know in fact that most members of parliament do not believe that viewing an image makes one kill. The law was bought in gain votes by being seen to respond to a campaign waged by the relatives of one murderer's victim. Parliament allowed the beliefs of victims who were understandably in no position to be making reasoned, enlightened judgments actually fundamentally affect law.

5) Enforcement. The law was bought in to be seen to be doing something, but as I understand it there is no actual active enforcement and those caught with 'extreme' images are mainly being prosecuted for their possession of child pornography. It is a law that politicians who know better in private than they behave in public do not wish to enforce. This is not worth the fear that has been bought into people's lives.

6) Stigma. The law passed without a high standard of debate due to the nature of what it concerned. The state should be aware that few are going to publicly stand up against a law when to do seems to risk practically declaring one's sexual interests. Thus many objections focus on the fact that we should allow 'distasteful' behaviour even if one personally does not approve. Dissent on the whole had to apologise for its existence. While people who wholly live the fetish lifestyle could more confidently object perhaps, what was missed was the potentially millions of people who have an interest in 'kinky' sex but are not in a situation socially to protest the law. The state should have acted with more restraint and awareness.

7) Thought crime. It's worth mentioning- I am a hard working, law abiding, happy British citizen who happens to occasionally enjoy some bondage orientated pornography. When the law was passed I felt like I had to censor myself. I felt like I should not search for such images. I felt oppressed. The state had suddenly intervened in my private, intimate thoughts. But I am not hurting anyone. No one in the images I'm interested in is hurting anyone. So please- GO AWAY. Or make it clear beyond any doubt that I am not being targeted, as I most certainly shouldn't be.

Already in this discussion we see the arguments of "Why should anyone want to look at this?" and "Well it won't make *me* do something bad, but it might make someone else do it, so let's ban it just to be on the safe side".

The answer to the first question is "Because Freedom of Expression doesn't mean 'Freedom to only look at things that you like'" I don't like Eastenders (how much violence is there on that programme?!) yet I don't call for it to be banned because I can't understand why anyone would want to watch it.

The answer to the second is that this is the classic cry of censors all the way back to when Socrates was sentenced to death for "Corrupting the youth of Athens".

There have been many post-hoc claims that "watching XYZ caused someone to do something bad", but this is simply Thought Crime legislation based on the idea that "if someone doesn't see nasty things, they won't do nasty things" which is nonsense.

This law should never have been passed, it now must be repealed if the Freedom Bill is to have any credibility.

One final note: This law was vigorously opposed in The Lords by the Liberal Democrats (The Commons never got to debate it) and it could have been defeated there if not for the fact that, as one Tory Peer admitted to me, "The Tories don't vote on Lib Dem Amendments".

Well now they have the chance to rectify their dereliction and agree that the State should not interfere with the right of Freedom of Expression simply based on the personal tastes of those passing the laws.

One additional note on this law:

When the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 was passed (even before the Extreme Pornography Legislation made it into law) Schedule 3, Part 1, Section 4 (1)d of the SVGA contains the stipulation that someone could be banned from working with vulnerable groups for:

"conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate"

In other words, *two years* before Extreme Pornography was outlawed, it was already deemed to be so dangerous that anyone looking at it could not be trusted to work with vulnerable groups.

The section of the above named act should also be repealed.

I can not understand how a picture of a leagle consential act can be illeagle. Porn does not cause violant crime any more then films such as Saw therefore this act does nothing more then to make crinmals of good law abiding people.

Questions have been raised above about what kind of monster is it that desires to give pleasure to people who are in pain.

In response I would ask what kind of monster wants to criminalise wanting to give pleasure to people who are in pain?

It's that simple. A sizable portion of the population find people more attractive when they are in pain or in danger, which is nature's way of forcing people to come to the aid of people in real-world situations who are in real pain or danger.

We are fortunate that real-world pain and danger are enough of a rarity that such people can restrict themselves to games because they don't need to exercise this caring impulse in their day to day life. Don't assume that we can throw out our better natures just because for the last few years we've been doing okay.

I cannot see what right any government has to interfere with or judge the private lives of consenting adults.

It seems even more rediculous that depictions of legal acts can be illegal!

This law came about as a knee-jerk reaction to events at the time and to buy political capital but in doing so has impinged on the fundamental freedoms of consenting adults to lead their lives as they wish so long as they are not adversly affecting others.

We must undo the erosion of fundamental freedoms wreaked on the people of this country by the previous government in the name of terrorism and protecting us from ourselves.

As an illustration of how bad this law is;
Anna ArrowSmith narrowly escaped a prosecution under this act because one of her films showed a women ejaculating, which according to 'them' is impossible, therefore the fluid shown must be urine and the film breaks the law. After Anna armed herself with some science that women can actually ejaculate the case was dropped. How much tax money was wasted on this I don't know.

This law is a complete mess and leaves too many possibilities for it to be misused due to the fact that it can even find against material that has already been passed by the BBFC ... This is plainly ridiculous
Also the imagery that it covers suck as child pornography etc are already covered in other laws making this totally unnecessary and probably confusing when it comes to the legal side of things as it could well clash with other rulings and cause trials to go on longer and cost more

The Anna ArrowSmith example proves that this law was passed based on incorrect information, since the Commons debates insisted that this law would only be used to target dangerous sex offenders who would otherwise escape justice.

It was also insisted that it would only cover materials already covered by the obscene publications act. It does not.

But the biggest problem is that it covers what pictures seem to portray, according to a 'reasonable adult'. I can contort my fingers into shapes which a reasonable adult would be forgiven for thinking were achieved by breaking my fingers. Actually it's as a result of exercises to alleviate repetetive strain injury. Nonetheless, the fact is that the typical reasonable adult doesn't know much about human anatomy and will believe that the slightest thing involves serious harm.

In Nick Clegg's speech on the 1st July he said that

"Our ambition is to create a society where no law-abiding individual ever feels intimidated by the state, just for going about their day-to-day business.
Where people aren’t cast under suspicion simply because of who they are"

Repealing this law would certainly fulfill those aims. It is a law that intimidates ordinary, law-abiding citizens for what has previously been their day-to-day business. It also casts suspicion on a group of people simply because of their sexual preferences.

Please Mr Clegg, repeal this law!

Absolutely. What one watches in the privacy of one's own home is nobody else's business. Nanny state has no place interfering provided children are not involved.

This law brings in thoughtcrime because it uses context to criminalise people for owning photos or videos of acts which could actually be perfectly legal to perform in reality. There are things a person can do with their other half in their own home which are legal, but if they take photos of those acts then they could become criminals for owning those photos. This is patently ridiculous and also sets an extremely dangerous precedent. This law must be removed in order to take away the ability of the state to prosecute us for what we are thinking.

I strongly support the abolition/significant amendment of New Labour's sinister "dangerous pictures" legislation in CJIB 2008 63-67.

Here's why-

1. Criminal laws should be based on evidence of harm. In its home office's one sided consultation paper and its justice ministry's equally biased Rapid evidence assessment, New Labour failed to produce evidence of any real life abuse in production of adult images or to show that people could be "inspired" to commit real life sexual crimes by viewing images. The "case" made by the previous government and the advocates of this law, was based not on facts, but rumour mongering and misinformation reprehensively presented to parliament and the public. If "violent porn" created sex criminals, the amount of material now available would have created huge surges in sex crimes, that this has not occurred shows that the concept of images creating criminals is not supported by facts.

The dangerous pictures act represents the sort of prejudicial and fantasy based approach to the criminal law which led to the slaughter of "witches" in the seventeenth century and imprisoning of homosexuals from 1886 to 1967. That a government launched a witch hunt over adult consensual sexuality in the 21st century, repeating the errors of the seventeenth century and the Victorians, only the victims changing, is almost beyond belief.

A major justification used by the law's supporters, was comparing the proposed new legislation with child image prohibitions. This is nonsense. Large scale child abuse exists and any criminal laws interfering in private life can be justified on the basis of child protection. But New Labour was unable to produce even one real case of similar adult abuse, from anywhere in the world! Children cannot consent, adults can..they can consent to taking part in sexual acts and legally staged representations to create images. The two situations, child and adult images, far from being the same, as the law's sponsors claimed, are in truth exact opposites.

2. It was said by its advocates that the law was to "protect children" from accessing such images. As images may be accessed from foreign website hosts in exactly the same way now as before the law existed, this justification is patently absurd. The law cannot "ban" anyone being able to access anything via the internet.

3. The solitary Longhurst-Coutts case, which inspired the knee jerking New Labour home office to start the passage of this legislation, shows again that hard cases make for bad laws. Millions may potentially pay for the crime of one man, Graham Coutts (who had a pre internet history of interest in extreme sado masochism). Actually this foolish law excuses murderers from responsibility for their actions, by allowing a person who commits a crime to assert "I am not to blame, the stuff I looked at MADE me do it!"

4. In the absense of evidence of harm, this act is therefore a law to imprison people on the basis of private taste and sexuality. No free society can exist with laws which are only based in criminalising private taste and sexuality.

5 An act which can be performed legally, can, absurdly, be illegal if possessed as an image under this law. The New Labour justice ministry, in its notes to the CJIB 2008, outrageously dissembled about this, claiming consent could not exist for acts the images criminalised, therby ignoring completely the fact that play and staged fiction are actually how such images are mainly created and that these acts are not illegal. We were thus being lied to by those writing criminal laws within a department of state. As this was a severe new criminal law, which can ruin lives and throw people in prison for years, such behaviour is appalling-all too characteristic of the last government. It represents a perversion of the requirement for absolute integrity in the process of law making.

6.This law is almost certainly incompatable with the human rights act and European convention on human rights. A leading human rights lawyer and judge, Rabinder Singh QC, concluded that the legislation prompts serious concerns as to its human rights compatibility. Straw's ministry of justice refused to release the MOJ's supposed legal advice that the law was human rights compatible when the request was made under freedom of information legislation. Why was this supressed if favourable to the New Labour position? Does the advice even exist? We may have reason to that doubt it does.

7. No other comparable nation has such a law, in contrast to the situation which exists re child porn possession, the bogus parallel used by New Labour to justify the CJIA 2008 legislation. This shows that such a criminal law, over purely private possessions, cannot be necessary. No government outside these shores thinks a law is required. A whole new set of sex criminals was instantly created here by New Labour's law, people never considered so before and not considered so in every other similar country fortunate enough not to have criminal laws being made by Messrs Blunkett and Straw. So far there has only been one case(on going) under only the extreme adult images provisions of the law, further showing its complete lack of necessity.

8. The law creates thought crime in criminalising even BBFC passed material, if stored in such a way a person may be believed to be having "erotic thoughts" about the images. Thought crime is totalitarian and can have no place in a free society.

9. The legislation criminalises sexual images of bestiality, with real animals, alongside images which are staged and consensually produced, involving only human adults. This creates more bogus "guilt by association", pretending the law is here addressing similar "issues". Abuse of animals, of course, cannot be consensual, nor is it usually legal to do; real non consensual images illegally produced have no relation whatsoever to fictional/consensual ones created from actions which are entirely legal.

10 It is a law relying heavily in subjective evidence-thus you cannot know you are breaking it, not until a jury delivers a-subjective-verdict. Terms like "grossly obscene" and "disgusting" are not objective ones. What "disgusts" me might not "disgust" you. Extreme feminists and puritans might find a page 3 girl picture "grossly obscene". So, its therefore a bad law because people can't know if they are breaking it or not, incompatible with human rights, which demand that the law be clear where the state interferes with private life. Demands for more clarity over what was to be considered illegal were ignored.

11. Although popular demand for a law is no sound justification in itself for passing one in a free liberal society, this justification was falsely used by the law's advocates to justify the measures. But there is no evidence that the present law was "demanded", either by the public directly or by organs of the popular media. The Longhurst petition asked for action against websites which promoted the abuse of women, not for this clunking fist totalitarian law which can criminalise private individuals over a wide range of consensual/fantasy bdsm images. The public consultation by the home office, though very biased towards there being new legislation, actually resulted in a majority rejection by respondents of the need for a new law by a huge margin (no new law 241, a new law 143). New Labour publicly dissembled over this inconvenient result and ignored the outcome of its own consultation!

There was virtually no press support for the law as it now stands. Even the Daily Mail published an article by Mr.Tom Utley opposing it on its editorial page soon after its announcement by the minister. On all the internet forums on which the law was discussed, mass opposition to the law was overwhelmingly in evidence.

No proper discussion was allowed in the commons on this major new criminal law-appalling and typical of the way the last government conducted business. In commitee, it was critised by Labour, Lib Dem and Tory members. Tory Mr.Edward Garnier, now solicitor general, wanted it totally rethought and hoped nobody would be prosecuted under it. Labour MP Harry Cohen put forward major amendments which would have excluded consensual images. Where the bill did get a debate, in the Lords, there was hardly a peer, across all the parties, who did not criticise/oppose the proposed measures. Liberal Democrats Lord Wallace and Baroness Miller were leading critics. Even a bishop questioned the need for it. All rational arguments and suggested changes were basically rejected by the New Labour government, though a couple of revisions were made by the minister, Lord Hunt, in the face of the extensive upper house hostility.
 
12. The penalties allowable under this law for possessing a consensual/fictional image are potentially higher than someone can be given for inflicting serious violence on a victim, showing this foolish law's perverse illogicality.

Is there evidence images create copycat sex crimes?
No there is not, if there was New Labour would have trumpetted it to the heavens in their consultation paper instead of relying on rumours and myths. A criminally inclined pervert can access supposedly "banned" images as easily now as before this law existed.

Would a sex criminal stop looking at images merely because it was "illegal"?
Of course not.

Can children still access such images ?
Yes, same as before this law existed. It remains a parents duty to "police" such matters-this inept law changes nothing.

Is there any evidence of real life abuse in production of images, of there existing abuse an of adults on a scale similar to the abuse of children which justify interference in privacy over possessing child images?
No there is not. Again, if there was, New Labour and Martin Salter MP would have presented it. The criminalisation of images hosted legally in the USA is just one illustration of the lack of rational justification for the measures and penalties in the legislation.

So, on the basis of evidence we have, who is made safer by the existence of this law, who on earth is being "protected" by it?
As far as concrete evidence is concerned, no actual "problem" has been established necessitating a law, so we can probably answer-"Nobody". The law therefore should not exist.

Did the Conservatives find serious fault with the law and finally refuse to support it?
Yes they did. In commons committee they called in vain for major revision of the legislation. In the only place it was debated/ voted on directly, in the Lords, they called for it to be rethought and mostly abstained rather than voted to support it.

Did the Liberal Democrats identify this as a bad unnecessary proposed law during its passage?
Yes they did. Being a deeply irrational law criminalising private taste and sexuality, it would be astonishing if people who pride themselves on being liberals could permit such crazy repressive legislation to remain now they can get rid of it.

This then is a prodnosed, repressive and deeply ridiculous law (the UK is a laughing stock among the western nations for having it), one which perfectly meets every single one of the criteria the coalition has made in defining bad laws which need removal or revision (unnecessary, unjustified invasion of privacy, human rights/civil liberties abusive, badly thought out knee jerking, shoddy and incoherent, created by the twisting of the correct procedures for legislation etc). It is a law dangerous to just about anyone's freedom. Images which might be deemed illegal are not uncommon and can be easily stumbled upon (quite unlike child indecency images). Thus they can be automatically stored and retained in a computer cache, without the owner even being aware of it. The law potentially has millions of victims in homes throughout the UK.

One does not have to be a fan of pornography (I am not), to assert that where there is no evidence of harm, where there are no identified victims, there should be no criminal offense. The "dangerous pictures act" is the opposite of evidence led legislation.
It is probably the worst, most dangerous law passed in the UK in the modern era, because of the terrible principle it is actually based in, that the state has the right to criminalise private taste and thought. For, as well as being bad in itself, it sets an appallingly dangerous precedenct. Not for more mere government "bans", but for more laws imprisoning people for looking at or reading things privately which some fanatical politician or pressure group doesn't approve of-totalitarianism. This is a genuinely evil and oppressive law. If the freedom bill means anything, such appalling legislation as this cannot be allowed to stand as it is. As another commentator has said, this law is "just wrong, period".

A statement on the Liberal Democrat position on the New Labour government's proposals to criminalise private possession of "extreme porn"-

".. Liberal Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have no role in censorship. In holding this policy, we are not condoning sexually explicit or violent material. We are stating the principle that people should be able to make their own judgments about what they say, read or see, without interference from the State, unless there will be real harm to others. As a Christian, I do not condone sexually explicit material. As a Liberal, I respect other people’s freedom to make their own choices."

"...some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed. They are based on misleading evidence. Almost every major official study in the United States, Canada and the UK has shown that it is simply not possible to establish a direct causal link between sexually explicit material and violent behaviour".

-Mr.Charles Kennedy MP, former Liberal Democrat leader, pubished on melonfarmers site Oct 2005(full text can be found at http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/argch05.htm)

In addition to the quote above from Charles Kennedy, here's one from Tony Blair:

.... there are areas in which the State, or the community, no longer has a role or, if it does have one, it is a role that is completely different. It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality.

Tony Blair 5th Sept 2006

Unfortunately it seems that he had forgotten he said this in 2008 when his Government passed the "Dangerous Pictures Act".

1) The state has no business criminalising any act which only involve adults who have given informed consent and takes place in private.
2) The state has no business criminalising the recording of such acts as described in clause 1.
3) As long as all participants have granted permission, the state has no business criminalising the distribution and/or viewing of such acts described in clause 1.

I'm both surprised and pleased that on numerous threads discussing S63 of CJIA 2008 the view is so close to unanimous. Whilst many of the other very sensible, pragmatic and popular suggestions on this web site are likely to be ignored for being "politically inconvenient", there is no cause for this one to be seen in that light, as many statements from the press and MPs and Peers for all 3 major parties attested to above show. Please Mr. Clegg, ensure that Ms. May and Mr. Clarke consult with CAAN and the Spanner Trust as a bare minimum over this issue.

Britain is a country based on Enlightenment principals and as such there can be little more immoral than laws that enact censorship. It shouldn't be necessary to quote Voltaire or John Stuart Mill to a government that contains liberals.

Previously existing laws were already sufficient to provide prosecution where coercion was involved and yet not one single case has ever been brought before a British court.

One of the major principals of representative democracy is to protect minorities from the "Tyranny of the Majority". Yet this law does the opposite. Censorship itself is the biggest threat democracy can ever have.

There was also the irony of the then-PM telling us all how horrible it was to victimise Alan Turing for his sexual preferences at the same time as passing this law to victimise people for their sexual preferences.

We will never know what Alan did with his gay lover, rightly so, but take a moment to think how easily he might have also violated this law if it had happenned today.

It seems bizarre to me that I can participate in an act which, in itself, is not illegal but that if I make a pictorial record of it, I can be prosecuted.

This is *real* nanny state stuff, and yet the Daily Mail has been strangely silent on this one. Funny that.

It seems bizarre to me that I can participate in an act which, in itself, is not illegal but that if I make a pictorial record of it, I can be prosecuted.

This is *real* nanny state stuff, and yet the Daily Mail has been strangely silent on this one. Funny that.

Actually you can possess photographs of legal acts that you participated in, so long as you are in the picture. This makes it even worse since it is possible for a married couple to possess a mixture of images, some of which are legal for the husband to possess but not the wife and some vice-versa. Presumably when they move house they have to carry the computer between them.

"This is *real* nanny state stuff, and yet the Daily Mail has been strangely silent on this one. Funny that."

Actually, to be fair they _did_ publish andarticle criticising this law ( http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/utley.html ), which just shows you how little support this law ever had.

(Although unfortunately, the Daily Mail are more recently back on their usual form, having published an article moaning about this website, citing this idea among others as reasons why allegedly bad ideas are being suggested.)

As a young person dealing with the stigma that comes with their sexuality, I find this law quite terrifying. It implies more stigma than there already is an seems to be a stepping stone law which may lead on to other more blatantly prejudiced laws. It's hard enough for young people when they find out that they belong to an alternative sexual preference with out having to worry about a criminal record that will lead to a court case that will make them have to come out to people when they don't want or feel able to.

Although I support the stance the police are trying to take on this law by basically ignoring it as much as they can reasonably get away with.

Another repressive law passed by a most repressive government and shepherded through Parliament by a Home Secretary who was allowing the public to pay for her husband's 'adult' films.

This Act is extremely dangerous as it permits government to decide what is and what is not 'pornographic'. The Act even covers works of art. Is Picasso to be hidden from us? John Bratby? Aubrey Beardsley? An Act that the regime in 1930's Germany would have been proud of it needs repealling and a return to common sense is called for. Adults do not need Nanny to tell them what to think. There is legislation already in place to protect the young and this should stay.

The law is yet another example of Labour's invasive policies and their relentless desire to control our lives. The laws should be repealed, and the government must start giving us some trust and respect back. Enough Orwellian society.

This law makes it illegal to look at pictures of people doing something that is not itself illegal. How daft is that?

There is nothing more obscene than censorship.

Something certianly needed to be done to address the problems of violence in porn. But this Labour legislation was a typical 'nanny state' disaster.

While we're on the subject, the powers that be still don't know whether the Madonna book "Sex" that was sold in WH Smiths in the early 90s is extreme porn or not.

A coffee table book, sold in WH Smiths, a piece of literary history, may or may not get you sent to prison the government haven't decided yet.

I completely agree. It is not for the government or anyone else to criminalise what happens between consenting adults, and I find it disgusting that it has been made illegal to even possess involving oneself and partner(s) engaging in consensual activity. It is needlessly criminalising thousands of ordinary people for no reason.

When films like SAW are being made and watched by millions, the majority of whom don't go and re-enact them, why do the government presume that watching people engage in consensual activity would make people more likely to commit a crime? It doesn't make any sense.

A nasty law from a NASTY party who I hope never see power again.

A fundamental aspect of liberalism is to defend the right of free people to engage in consensual activities, even if you personally are uncomfortable with it.

Its easy to be a liberal on an issue that matters to you.

So repeal this prohibition.

Even as a piece of knee-jerk legislation, this law makes no sense. (Although if it was knee-jerk legislation, it was a very slow jerk.)

Didn't Graham Coutts fantasize about strangling women? You can have images of women being strangled without them being pornographic. Would such images be pornographic to someone like Graham Coutts?

This law criminalises possession of such images when they're obviously pornographic to most people (a jury), but not when most people wouldn't see them as obviously pornographic. I don't see how that can make sense when the law is supposed to protect people from those with unusual sexual tastes.

I wonder if this law might actually drive people like Graham Coutts to more extreme images, but ones which simply don't appear to be pornographic to most people. What would the law have achieved then?

Just to clarify, I don't actually agree with this purpose of the law anyway. It's thought crime, since it's criminalising people for thoughts they might have. I'm just saying that even if we agreed with this purpose of the law, it still doesn't make sense anyway.

It looks like a law drafted by those who were very confused about what they were trying to do.

FreeToBeMe:

I agree with your comment, though just to note:

"(Although if it was knee-jerk legislation, it was a very slow jerk.)"

Actually there was a very quick jerk - Liz Longhurst called for adult porn sites to be shut down the day after Coutts's conviction; the police made the calls just 2 days later; MP Martin Salter called for a ban 6 days after the conviction, and after only three weeks later, Home Secretary David Blunkett decided he was going to do something about it.

The slowness of the jerk was then a couple of years or so while they decided what they were going to do, and coming up with a law criminalising simple possession (far worse than controls on publication!) But the knee jerk to do something happened very quickly.

( http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Timeline )

The comments on the topic make very interesting reading. I hope that the government takes note of what is said.

Unlikely ;-)

 Has anyone else noticed you can not list items on the number of votes cast and the popularity filter does not take the number of people voting into account?

Yet another piece of atrocious legislation introduced by the former administration who yet again hastily put together a vaguely worded and ill-informed act of parliament that intrudes on our civil liberties.

I'm browsing this site, and commenting on the proposals I've felt particularly strongly about, and I find myself describing legislation with the same words - atrocious, intrusive, ill-informed, shaming, disgusting. This just happens to be another example.

The Register covered a story of a man victimised by this piece of legislation here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/22/six_second_clip/

If you can't be bothered to click on the link (it's a serious news article, btw) one of the charges was for a computer generated tongue in cheek joke about Tony the Tiger of Frosties fame. An absolute farce.

How the hell does a man have charges put against him for having a video of a CGI tiger shagging some woman? Not to mention be banned from seeing his daughter for the period of this case.

He did have some extreme BDSM type stuff as well, but some people are into that kind of stuff and personally what consenting adults do - as long as no one dies - should be up to the individuals.

Silly waste of money bringing charges against this man, fortunately the outcome was correct, but the repercussions of not only having contact with his daughter withdrawn but also his name in the papers are unacceptable.

Here's an update on the "tiger porn" person, who had also been facing charges for a six second S&M clip involving consenting adults: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/

He'd originally plead guilty, but thanks to Backlash, changed to not guilty, and finally the CPS backed down. Shows how much faith they have in the law.

But there is at least one case of someone who has been convicted for images only involving humans: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/[…]/Porn-found-on-phone-.6433888.jp

Looks like he received a poor defence, and ended up pleading guilty.

criminalising recordings of what would otherwise be the actions of consenting adults because you find them distasteful? How very Labour Party.

beastiality is already illegal.

child porn is already illegal.

making unnecesary knee-jerk legislation that duplicaes existing legislation and makes it incredibly broad? Sounds like control-freakery. How very Labour Party.

Here's an update on the "tiger porn" person: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/ - he pleaded not guilty, and the CPS backed down at the last minute. So that's a great victory, but the fact remains that this man has had to go through months of hell - fearing he may be spent to prison, be placed on the Sex Offenders Register, being denied access to his daughter - all for a couple of images, and where in both cases, it turns out that the CPS didn't even have the evidence to prosecute anyway, but were likely just trying it on in the hopes of him pleading guilty.

And unfortunately, sometimes that tactic works. Another recent case: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/[…]/Porn-found-on-phone-.6433888.jp , where he plead guilty, and was sentenced to community service. The image doesn't involve animals, no indication of non-consensual participants, and no mention of other charges. It might not be your or my cup of tea, but this seems to be more like a "shock image", of which many exist on the Internet, and which people look at for a variety of reasons (e.g., amusement, curiosity). Most people find "2 girls" disgusting - but it would be absurd to say that anyone who viewed or possessed it should be a criminal. His only crime was to not delete the image, as stated in the article - but when so few know about this law, when there's no reason to think that such images would be illegal, and when even if you have read the law, it's hard to know what counts and what doesn't, there's going to be a lot of harmless and otherwise law abiding people who have an illegal image hidden away somewhere in their PC or phone.

I was drawn into a conversation earlier regarding the old Hugh Grant film The Lair Of The White Worm. I wanted to refresh my memory and checked Amazon out of curiosity.

It seems that the film is out on VHS only in this country, but you can import a dvd with English dialogue from other european countries. Since this would not be the bbfc classified version would it count as extreme porn? I remember the bbfc approved version features a hallucination in which a nun gets stabbed and raped, but that's okay because it's bbfc classified.

Unfortunately it seems that he had forgotten he said this in 2008 when his Government passed the "Dangerous Pictures Act".

To be fair to Tony Blair He resigned the very day this Bill was tabled on the commons.

This was forced through the commons on a whipped vote as part of a huge criminal justice bill which left no time to discuss this part of the bill. In the Lords it was passed on a whipped vote with only Labour Peers voting for it.

It is a poorly thought out law and should be prime for chopping by a coalition which did not vote for this in the first place

A law which has produced no benefit to society but has the potential to destroy a persons life. A law which the Home Office made no honest attempt to make evidence based. A law which is possibly in breach of human rights legislation. Why shouldn't this law be repealed?

This absurd law which intrudes on people's civil liberties and attacks the foundation of what our democratic society stands for needs to be over turned. This law is designed to hurt and criminalise innocent people who have not done anything wrong - just because they enjoy things in their personal sex lives. We have a right to enjoy sex and pictures of it when done between consenting adults

Firstly as a photographer I disagree with this law, secondly as an occasional fet model I disagree with this law, thirdly as a sub/slave in a full D/s O/p relationship I disagree with this law.

What I simulate in my pictures, the things I do on film, anything my Master/Partner does to me on film or stills in our own home and for our pleasure harms no one else.

My life, my call & my judgement.

The police didn't want this section passed as they were given no guidance on how to use it and many people campaigned to stop it in it's tracks. This was a thought crime based amendment added to appease a small group over a highly emotional case. Sites showing scenes of a BDSM nature inveriably have the model release forms to prove that the models consented to the acts and happily took part, why should that be illegal?

As a photographer I would ask that this law is repealed. People must understand that the people who pose do so willingly and do not suffer in any way.

Who decides if something is sexually arousing? It's all so subjective. It makes the law difficult to interpret and almost impossible to police.

I was going to start a thread on this, but saw that I’d been beaten to it, so decided to add my comments here.

The DPA is a law that has no place in what purports itself to be a free country, as essentially it just criminalises bad taste and was pushed through with little or no formal debate, despite strong objections from many academics, civil liberties groups and members of the public.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the material it criminalises is actually being put on for the camera by consenting adults, and hence why this material is perfectly legal in virtually every other European country.

You would be extremely hard pressed to find any commercially available material featuring images of genuine abuse, as this would be a criminal offensive in any country, for which adequate laws already exist that could deal with it (if indeed such material existed) which renders this law unnecessary.

However, those who were pushing for this law conveniently overlooked these facts and insisted the material was genuinely abusive, despite providing no evidence for these claims.

The law also makes no distinction between images that are genuine and faked, so you can be jailed for several years and listed on the sex offenders register just for owning an image of an act that was in itself perfectly legal.

It also creates a crime of context, whereby images extracted from a body of works, such as a BBFC certified film, can suddenly become prosecutable if taken out of context and also means that images from “shock” sites, such as the Stile project (look them up on Wikipedia) can be prosecutable, even though such images are generally intended to shock, rather than arouse.

Restrictive laws should only be brought in where the government can demonstrate clear “proof of harm”. The previous Government repeatedly failed to demonstrate this, and instead pushed this through on the grounds that such material was “abhorrent” and “should have no place in our society”, as was their wording in their own consultation document.

No right minded person would agree that this is a good enough reason for criminalising otherwise law biding citizens. So I fail to see how this law is in any way compatible with current European human rights laws, particularly as it so blatantly contravenes the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the ECHR.

If it could be demonstrated this material was in any way problematic, then I could see there being an argument for outlawing its possession. However, the government repeatedly failed to do this.

Their own “rapid evidence assessment” team, which was primarily comprised of persons with an anti-pornography agenda, failed to provide any proof that the persons appearing on these websites were being abused and their “evidence” that viewing this material had a negative affect was based on studies with known flaws, and was subsequently debunked by a group of academics, which again the government of the day chose to ignore (visit http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/acad_statement.html for more information)

This law not only lumps consensual and fictional images with those of genuine abuse, which should rightly be illegal, but it reverses the burden of proof, and changes the legal definition of “obscene” from “liable to deprave and corrupt” to “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”, which are purely subjective terms and not what I would call good policy making.

It is also interesting to note that several MPs suggested making sensible amendments to this bill, which were ignored both during the committee stages and during its passage through the lords.
 
This law sets a very dangerous precedent as once you abandon the concept of evidence based legislation and allow the banning of materials on grounds of distaste, this can be used to justify similar laws banning other materials and opens the floodgates to other agenda laden censorship laws.

So far this law has only been used to prosecute people who’d been sent jokey “shock” emails on their mobile phone, or to add charges to persons already charged with other crimes, which was never the intention of this law, which has all the markings of a thought crime and living in a police state.

In any case, it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to criminalise UK citizens for possessing material that is staged, consensual and perfectly legal in every other European country.

As the law is so badly flawed, it should be either repealed entirely, or at least suitably amended so that the prosecution have to prove the images were genuinely abusive and non-consensual and the wording of obscene changed back to the proper legal definition of “liable to deprave or corrupt”.