I had Showgirls the movie on my laptop and flew from London to edinburgh then the rape scene in it would be illegal and I'd be locked up!!
Beggars belief at the lack of common sense of people in power
Pairs cos she should be a showgirl
While England is very soon to begin the interesting experiment of sending people to jail for possession of dangerous pictures, the Scottish Government is only just getting its act together on the subject. Not to be outdone, their proposed new Law goes significantly further than the English one, creating the very real …
Lawyer friend tells me that sex with an animal is 2 months, possession of photographs of same is 2 years under the new legislation. I don't advocate this activity, of course, it's a revolting idea. However it's a good example of how confused and stupid they are.
These neopuritan dimwits should be put in a rubber room and fed soft food that you can eat with your hands. Never be allowed to pass laws again, never.
"Not to be outdone, their proposed new Law goes significantly further than the English one, creating the very real possibility that travellers could depart London with nothing but legal pictures on their laptop – and pull into Edinburgh Waverley facing arrest for their hard-drive smut."
And the English law goes further than French law, creating the very real possibility that travellers could depart Paris with nothing but legal pictures on their laptop – and pull into London St Pancras International facing arrest for their hard-drive smut.
Different countries, different laws. What a remarkable concept.
Just watched Taken (flipping great by the way) and there are a couple of scenes with drugged women being mauled by eastern european workers absolutely without consent, as they have been kidnapped and are being forcibly addicted to heroin to make them more compliant in their new life as a sex slave (not a spoiler as its made clear very soon into the movie)
Does the law mean now that it would be illegal to watch that movie, or is it ok to watch it, but any screenshots (still images) of it would be illegal but the movie itself is fine ?
I *think* its the latter, in whch case that is just plain crazy bonkers.
If the movie is ok, and the stills from the movie are ok, then why would other pictures showing an identical scene be less legal...jeez, its madness.
Either way, I'm off to set up Truecrypt with a double container for plausible denial, I don't have much that I think would fall foul of the law to be honest, but if the definations and logic is this flakey I am locking up every single file with so much as a boob on it.
Look up where the Presbytarians came from.
Bill Conolly doesn't have much time for them (Something along the lines of "A religion that says 'thou shall not'? We wear KILTS? We FUCKING SHALL!!!!").
"Puritan" is no longer used to denote the sect of christianity. It's used to denote a strict banning of anything rude or fun (because God didn't put us here to have FUN!!! We're only allowed to have fun in heaven, which you aren't going to because you smiled once..)
...if Satanic Slut #1 did in #2 with the full consent of #2 it wouldn't be an illegal picture? Armin Meiwes will be happy to hear that.
Alternately, as their relation does not appear to be sexual (being nekkid thegither in a tub is NOT having sexual relations, says my friend Bill C.) the picture is not illegal?
Ma head asplode...
Paris, coz she did not have sexual relations with that man/woman/comfy chair.
> Last I looked, Scotland was part of the UK, France was not....
So? We're still different *countries*. We have different *legal systems* because we are different *countries* and different *countries* have different laws.
Heck, even the states in the US have different laws. OK, so what if I use a different analogy?
And the Utah law goes further than Nevada law, creating the very real possibility that travellers could depart Carson City with sh*gg*ng a perfectly legal prostitute in the back of the van – and pull into Salt Lake City facing arrest for having sex with an illegal wh*re.
Scotland has always had its own law that is different from England. the best example of this is the sports ground act Scotland which makes it illegal to attempt to enter a football ground under the influence of alcohol, you don’t even need to try and enter the police can arrest you if the see you coming out the pub with your match ticket as you are going to the game.
If the material is performance, what's the issue? If it's part of a movie or two consenting porn models had photographs taken for a website, where's the harm? Who's being hurt here? People are making material that people want to buy. The seller makes money, the buyer gets something they want. I fail to see the illegality there. Doesn't the UK have better issues to put these resources to instead of telling us what kind of porn we can look at it. I used to regret moving away from Scotland but things like this really help with the transition.
Mine's the one with the torn up ticket home in the pocket.
Another possible downside could be the lessening of the stigma of being a "sex offender" - at the moment it's (quite rightly too) not something you'd want to be tagged with, but if you can be classed as a sex offender for just watching the wrong film or having a few S&M pics on your laptop there could potentially be lots of "sex offenders" - it could almost become like speeding offences, everybody who is convicted of speeding is a "criminal", but does anyone really care?
Usually I am taken to task for forgetting that Scotland has a different legal history to the rest of the UK. This time, as one reader has pointed out in e-mail, I have forgotten the rest.
The current position is that the law on extreme porn, coming into effect next Monday (26 January) will govern conduct in England, Wales and Northern Ireland:
For the time being, you can fap to whatever floats your boat in Scotland without being subject to the same penalties.
Paris - because in future, that is where you may have to go to buy your stash.
where upon he watched Thomas the tank engine and escaped by train...
Its rather stupid when photo's of an act, even i the photo is a staged setup shot, can carry a sentance longer than what is usual for th actual crime, is stupid.
surly these idiots in power, must have had people around them who grew up in the video nasty 70's, and be able to see it did not turn them into raping killing zombies, and from that be able to work out that what we see does not dictate what we do, and i bet most of the people reading this comment have grown up in those times and are law abiding, or at least not raped/killed anyone.
I'm not saying some people have not watched 'dodgy' stuff then committed crimes, just that they no doubt would have committed them anyway, blaming something else for their actions, like a book, maybe a good book, full of sex and violence, whats it called again, oh yes the bible...
the only good censorship is self censorship.
more f----g puritans. First no hardcores, then no drawings, then no loud noises, or swearing in pubs, then no dancing or alchole, then no shagging except if married, and adultury will have a prison sentance, then no sex unless there's a sheet between you.
Well last time these f---ers made it to power it only lasted a decade or two, I can't see them staying about much longer a second time.
Different laws does not a country make.
If you are someone who was born in Scotland, please tell me what is on the front cover of your passport?
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
I'm willing to bet that it is the former. Scotland, Wales and England are PRINCIPALITIES/STATES.
"Last I looked, Scotland was part of the UK, France was not....
Unless of course you still belive you are your own little country, in your own little world..."
I don't live in Scotland, but they do have their own legal system - have had for a *very long time*.
And if you look at Wikipedia (or constitutional documents starting from the Act of Union) you'll see references to things like this: "The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."
Note the word "countries". The even have, like the French (or Welsh) a different language in some parts of their country.
If it was just one country with one set of laws - then places like Gretna wouldn't be so famous today. For over 200 years you had English couples eloping to Scotland (a different country with different laws) to get married.
Why oh why oh why is so difficult for some (almost always English) to stop peddling the myth that the UK is one country? It's 1 Kingdom (or unitary State) made up of 4 countries. Voila, how hard is that?
The Scots do have strange approaches to legal issues; I was rather baffled that much of the evidence from the inquiry into the Dunblane killings had to be locked up under their
McSecrets Act for 100 years.
Hiding things & making them illegal only tends to make them go underground and become a more widespread and sinister problem.
An excellent article, for an awful law.
England's law is already worrying. Including images of consenting adults role-playing rape (whether for porn, or for their own fun in the bedroom) is also worrying.
But as the article rightly points out, how do you tell if an image merely depicts rape? This risks including not just acts intended to depict rape, but all sorts of rough sex, or sex with bondage or gags. Possession of a vast range of BDSM material could be criminalised. The uncertainty of the law would also mean more chilling effects - the opinion of the police or jury as to whether an image depicts rape may be very different from the one in possession.
This also fuels the myth that rape is to do with what the scene looks like - e.g., rape with violence or when you're tied up, or by a stranger, whilst "date rape" from a friend is just fine. Nonsense. Rape is about lack of consent - and this law ignores actual consent altogether, and goes just by what an image looks like.
Some of the media coverage in Scotland is annoying - whilst some criticism has been covered, we've also got the anti-porn lobbyists crawling out of the woodwork ( http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Linda-Thompson-Pornography-is-just.4896468.jp , http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.2482934.0.Do_extreme_images_put_womens_safety_at_risk.php ).
"...and other material deemed unsuitable..."
Deemed unsuitable by whom?
One cannot legislate morality, for no common standard exists. Allow me to give an example: Female circumcision is an abhorrent practice, isn't it? Are we all agreed thusly? (unlikely, there is no doubt a small percentage of our nations populace who think it is entirely appropriate, but anyway...) How about male circumcision? Who's ready to stand up and decry orthodox judaism then?
Morality is subjective, and thus blanket legislation is impossible, but despite this someone, somewhere is still 'setting the moral standard' under which we will all have to live. Who is this person or persons? Male? Female? Age? Race? Culture? Religion? Whoever they are, they must be a paragon of virtue, untouchable by any criticism from any part of our multi-cultural society!
How can a multi-cultural nation have a single code of morality applied to it?
Soon, this will be demonstrated to those who dare to create such laws as the very material they are decrying as 'immoral and thus illegal' will be embedded in their own systems, emails and webpages, and then the authorities that they have empowered will be notified of the crimes they commit simply by owning such material and lacking the skills to remove it. It is being made a crime to not be IT/Internet savvy, and they will be the first to suffer under their own draconic measures.
Take it as law.
- Yours, Anonymous.
Maybe not sane exactly, but a different, less insane, kind of crazy ;P
On the plus side, it'll take away some of the ammo the nuts in the Arab world use against the west. If that's actually a plus I don't really know. Maybe the nuts of the world are trying to create one world of mixed nuts who believe, in the end, it will result in world peace. Which would we prefer, a prison state, or an insane asylum state? Not really much of a choice if you ask me, which you didn't, but what can I say, I'm one of those nuts they excluded from the mixed nuts pack :P
Mine's the one made out of coconuts.
...I had always understood the UK to consist of two countries (England and Scotland): a Principality (Wales) and a Province (Northern Ireland) - although never been entirely clear about what exact difference that makes.
As for the point about cross-border illegality: it is one thing to have different laws governing conduct in Scotland and England (the way Breach of the Peace is used differently in those two legislatures is a good case in point). Yes: I, too have played the legal debating game of imagining a train powering its way around Europe with a near-legal couple shagging whilst on-board (mucho staying power anywhere other than the Benelux triangle, but still....). It is good for a short diversion, and an interesting staple for law exams on the pros and cons of legal harmonisation.
However, different laws on possession are that bit more problematic. At least they seem so to me.
Even more so if it is possession of something accessed over a common network like the internet.
It doesn't really matter whether Scotland has a different legal system to England or not, because what they're going to do is to copy a law which is, frankly, an utter pig's ear and which even the Ministry of Justice now admits is incomprehensible!
They have finally agreed that "it may not be possible for an individual to have absolute certainty about which side of the line an image may fall" and so the *only* way this can be determined is for the owner of that image to be taken to Court and for our Legal System to try to sort out the complete mess of this law.
Of course the English and Scottish Courts have *so much* free time that they can waste it on trying to figure out what "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene nature" actually means and then take guesses at what was in a person's mind when they downloaded a picture to see if it is "for sexual arousal" and then they can count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin whilst they decide if what the image shows is "life threatening" or "likely to result in serious injury"...
You can releive your fantasies through the use of pornography harming no-one. The law changes so that the punishment for looking at pictures is just as bad or, in some cases worse, than committing the actual offence depicted.
Logically, ou might as well just go out and do the real thing, as the consequences wouldn't be much different if you had self-control and contained your fantasies in your own head, with graphic aids.
In any case, seeing that politicians now believe that seeing a picture of something makes you likely to go and do it, how long before anyone who's watched a beheading video online is arrested for being a potential murerer?
<i>Does the law mean now that it would be illegal to watch that movie, or is it ok to watch it, but any screenshots (still images) of it would be illegal but the movie itself is fine ?</i>
The law will simply be framed very broadly to mean "whatever it takes for PC Plod to land you in jail". It's probably illegal to enjoy the rape scenes too much also so a little work with some brain electrodes is also in order ;-)
That both the proposed Scottish law and the English/Welsh law is blatantly an attempt to once again force people to think as the politicians wish us to think. This is the most dangerous aspect of such a law ! Once again because pornography can be easily looked down upon, far too readily it becomes an easy target. In effect it is the bully mentality of law making! i.e. 'What easy target can we pick on today ?'. History has repeatedly proven what a slippery slope this is. The politicians are yet again the bullyboys of the nation. Instead of robbing the population to pay the bankers for the mess they and the so called financial governing bodies have gotten us all into they should be drafting laws to ensure that no such mess ever occurs again - get a grip on what is really important ! Real lives being ruined rather than fantasies !
Paris - cos at least she has more sense than many of the damn elected politicians !
Don't be so quick to blame the politicians. Everyone knows they are nothing more than attention-seeking, self-interested careerists who will nail their colours to whichever mast they feel is most expedient. Certainly do not go looking for any intellect or reasoned argument amongst our politicians. Supine, completely without scruples and almost completely bereft of any notion of what an actual 'democracy' might really look like, every last man and woman amongst them will sign away all our freedoms if they think there's a popularity vote to be won in it.
So who are the real culprits here? Who is really responsible for these endless new laws governing our sexual morality, our private thoughts and desires? I think we need look further than advocates. Advocates create an agenda, feed an idiot, unquestioning media with spurious 'reports', create news agendas and bring about an atmosphere in which clueless, heavily lobbied (and often complicit) politicians are left with little choice but to cave in to their every demand.
Of course, when it comes to children, advocates very quickly realised they'd tapped an unimaginably rich seam of emotional blackmail - here is a set of issues so emotive (and impossible to discuss in public) that it renders all the normal rules of engagement practically redundant. Look at how powerful our great child protection advocates have become under the guise of protecting our kids from all those paedos stalking chatrooms, playgrounds and MySpace (allegedly)...
And so we end up here. The 'extreme porn' laws have all but been enacted across the UK, whilst the new proposals for laws on 'indecent' drawings and cartoons will doubtless follow them into the statute books very shortly - because nobody is going to oppose them. Absolutely nobody. Of that, you can be certain. Advocates will always play the 'think of the children!' card, mugging it up before news cameras to deliver completely unsubstatiated but nevertheless snappy, memorable and highly emotionally charged soundbites. Just as the media like it.
And then they will move on, just like they always have, to their next target. It's how these things work. It's how they stay in business. They create a 'national scandal' with the help of a sensationalist media all too happy to blithely pimp their agenda (and fill their schedules), tins are rattled and dues collected from public and private purses and all reconvene to decide on their next campaign and PR spend.
Idiot politicians will always back this stuff - it's in their nature to quiver and capitulate as soon as the magic 'think of the children!' words are sprinkled into any conversation. They remain as incapable of sensible reasoning on this as the very advocates they are pandering to. We really shouldn't expect anything better.
The only ones to lose out are the ordinary voters and society in general who get no say in any of this, but are slowly but surely criminalised (I could say terrorised) by this creeping legislation.
You faild to grasp how all that would happen.
1, you would go to jail as a sex ofender.
2, your DNA would be registerd so the police, finding it a a crime seen would pick you up for questioning.
3, on release your name and address would be kept by the police and may be reased to local vigilanties so they can threaten or kill you at will.
Not so funy ?
You should probably check what you can be put on the Sex Offenders register for - for example drunkenly pissing against a wall on a Saturday night counts as exposure (bloody right in this cold weather) and as such can get you on the list.
You appear to have made the same (wrong) assumption that the popular press pedal, that the Sex Offenders Register = List 99 (thats the sub-set that contains Paedo's), which is not the case.
Only extreme pictures should be banned.
Like dominatrix choke pictures or gagging being fake or real
Or any sexual picture that also includes blood or fake blood
wax on the nips if she smiles is ok but if she looks like shes in pain then it should be banned.
Humiliation pictures also ashould be banned and sex with animals
pictures of nude nuns or any slight connection with religion while having intercourse also should be banned.
Also sex with machines such as drills with added devices such as arm extenders.
Picture sof having sex with robots should be ok.... The list could go on and on and on.
I'm a Scots expat - and I look back sometimes and wonder what the hell is happening!
Wee Eck's determination to ban off-license sales of booze to under-21s, the knee-jerk reactionary laws on the basis of some sink-estate shrieking Senga's Daily Retard campaign (e.g air rifles), and now this dog's dinner of unnecessary legislation?!
And they say that 2009 is the "Homecoming" year for expats - aye right. Coming home to find out the Wee Free's (Lothian chapter) have taken over? Or - as they are less affectionately known - the Tartan Taliban.
Not the copy I read, Which was all "Rape super easy to find online", "Disgusting activites everywhere" "Why wasnt this done sooner"
The only anti piece was the small paragraph from CAAN, with the rest of the 2 pages devoted to why this needed to be implemented yesterday, and why anyone who would look at anything vaguely pornographic was a dirty pervert who should be shopped to the police as soon as possible.
Scotland is a seperate country, we even have a seperate parliament, same bunch of numpties running it though and same passports. :-(
Seems like psychopaths will just have to indulge in legal pursuits, like playing Call of Duty (watching portrayals of pre-teen slut merits an instant death penality, but mass murder's positively cool) all day long, joining the army to stop foreign terrorists from grabbing our oil under their sand, gambling online and watching Channel 5.
Likewise drug addicts should steet clear of illegal narcotics and get themselves diagnosed with a personality disorder so they can benefit from legal psychoactive medicines.
Four of our fifty states are not actually states they're "commonwealths" but they still count as states but then there are some commonwealths like Puerto Rico that in spite of being commonwealths don't count as states... lord knows how the Federated States of Micronesia fit into all of this @_@
This legislation solves no problem and protects no citizen in any jurisdiction in the British Isles. It is simoly another exercise in repression by the Home Office branch of the Taliban under the inspirational leadership of Ayatollah Jacqui Smith.
Scotland, since we kicked out Nulabour, has a fairly good record of amending legislation to more realistically reflect what is practical in the real world. But we are just as susceptible to the effects of fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread by the UK government. Our national hero, Billy Connolly best expressed this in another context - "Dae somethin', dae somthin', dae wan o thae miracles." Hence the legislation.
Once again, make it illegal, send it underground! Now I am not saying that you need to legalise everything so we can keep and eye on it, but surely 99.5% of adults can be trusted to think for themselves? Oh sorry, using common sense there. Don't worry the government will soon have that banned too!
If you've got a basic Tab-A in Slot-B type picture, not showing the faces of the owner of either tab or slot, how could you possibly know whether either of them consented? Even more confusingly, how can you tell if either of them "depicts" a person who has consented? For that matter how can you tell if either of them "depicts" a corpse?
I'm not that up on Scottish law, but I understand they are/were going through a (much needed) reform of rape laws which previously only covered the most blatant assaults. It might have made sense to call a depiction rape under the old law "extreme porn" (though I still oppose censoring it), but when rape is simply defined as an absence consent, how can you apply that to fictional characters?
I am dreadfully worried that the creative talents of the exposee team of El Reg might have their creative juices curbed. Prior to the above news, there was a rumour going around that they were going to do a piece on The News of The Earth rag, showing (shock horror) NAKED playmobil figures (suitably censored for our delicate eyes) supposedly being sexed without consent !
Mines trying to search for USB Memory sticks having been planted !
So, looking at many comments above, I am left with the view that many (mostly English) WANT Scotland to be 'theirs' as in, England is such a small country on its own, we NEED Scotland to make us BIGGER !!!
Well, Scotland is delighted to be part of the unitary state that is the United Kingdom. Would that the English (in general) felt the same !
We Scots do all that we can to help our less able English friends. We give you sensible laws which you can copy if you wish --- you usually decline because they are Scottish and go on to pass some stupidly complex shadow of a bill which requires rapid and frequent amendments. Scotland's educational system is second to none and has been for centuries. In the 60s, those first year university students from Scottish schools attending Scottish Universities had to REPEAT what they did in their last year at school BECAUSE the students coming from the English system had not yet covered that work !! You should have heard the comments from the ones who went south to an English university !! Is that still the same, I don't know, but I could hazard a guess !!
Of course, without us England would grind to a halt. Most successful companies in England have Scotsmen (and women) at their heads --- chairman -- directors --- shit, even 'YOUR' government for Christ's sake !! So shut it with the Scotland isn't s separate country. It IS a separate country which chooses to be within a United Kingdom and a United Europe.
Of course, the more the EU becomes integrated, the more likely Scotland becomes to dump good old England in favour of people who are more appreciative of what the Scots have to offer. Like, we gave the world Penicillin, TV, Tarmac roads, Antiseptics, Anaesthetics, and a whole arm-long list of other stuff in your daily life !! Now, let me see if I can match that with English achievements --- I need to be strictly fair and unbiased here !
Ah .. porn .. right ! .... yup ...now I understand !!
I hate fucking Presbyterians, its like being in the fucking dark ages, all the bars close early, the streets are deserted after 1, and you cant even watch fucking films any more because they depict violence, recreating Victorian era taboos and suppressing a vibrant, 24 hour society like the rest of the world - just because they're all happy enough going home at night and having a guilty wank in the privacy of their own cupboard.
@Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 21st January 2009 "How can a multi-cultural nation have a single code of morality applied to it?"
That is very obvious:
The do-gooders, world-improver's and multiculturalist than come up with laws like that will just scour the land to find the most easily offended, narrow-minded, choleric, bigoted, arse and then they will ask him!!.
Some Wahhabi cleric straight out of Saudi Arabia would be about right.