Extreme pr0n suspect has his internet access suspended

A new threat for those suspected of ogling extreme porn arrives today in the shape of an internet ban pending trial. This is what lawyers might term "an interesting idea", and one that could come to cause grief far more widely if it catches on. Phillip Heard, aged 57, of Coed Fedwen, Birchgrove, in Swansea, faces 19 charges of …

[Anonymous Coward]

neither

Neither justice or sense matter here any more. You can abuse imaginary people apparently now days. So expecting the law and its corrupt officers to abide by any kind of law is like expect a dog to stop pooping.

The nations gone crazy and it isn't going back to being sane for a good few decades. The puritans are in charge, and the populace (and media) are happy about it. They want to feel safe in bs cotton wool. They all make me sick, but I'm tired of thinking about it and you're better off punching the smug basterds that support this kind of crap in the face then trying to argue with them becouse they're too mentally crippled and afraid to use their brains anymore. Also you'll get off with a caution and feel better about life. Win all round I think.

Also as far as MPs are concerned I suspect if their expenses can be altered retrospectively then why not everything else. Que retrospective laws and tax hikes no doubt.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Sir

"Also you'll get off with a caution and feel better about life"

Unless it's your first offence, in which case you're screwed.

[The Original Ash]

Retrospective law?

Good luck with that.

No, seriously. It's more than likely going to be the straw which breaks the camel's back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless

of course he aquired them then and retained them so he still possessed them after the act came into force.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep

They are still on his computer. Of course the fact that it's due to the police taking ages to do the forensic work won't be taken into account!

Actually the above could be completely wrong, but wouldn't surprise me!

[AndreaGriffin]

Stupid Laws

I fail to see how having these pictures causes anyone any harm in the first place. So he had some pictures of adults doing some odd things. Dear god, would somebody please think of the... adults? If this guy hurt someone, sure, put him away for a few years. From the article, however, I fail to see how any harm was caused to a person or society as a whole.

Anyways. If he can't buy any product that can access the Internet, then he can't have any kind of computer. Nearly every cell phone these days have the ability to access the Internet, too. Even an eBook reader, like the Kindle, could be banned to him. Many modern televisions have the ability to be networked - and I am guessing that, not long from now, it will be difficult to find one that can't be wired up.

Might as well just go live in the forest as a luddite.

[Someone Else]

@Stupid Laws

"Might as well just go live in the forest as a luddite."

Which is, after all, what they want, isn't it?

[Paul 4]

No

Living in a forrest would mean building on greenbelt land.

[Chris Bradshaw]

But if he lives in the forest...

he will have increased access to animals. Not photos of animals, but the real thing.

Won't someone* please think of the animals**?

*other than PETA

** finally found a use for the badger icon ;-)

[shaunhw]

The animals... well

"Won't someone* please think of the animals"

Yeah,

We'll have them for dinner. Roast lamb sounds good to me...

[MinionZero]

@"I fail to see how having these pictures causes anyone any harm in the first place"

Because they are punishing literally a Thought Crime, not an actual crime.

If someone has a picture of someone else causing harm to another person, then its the person in the picture causing the harm, not anyone holding the photo of that act.

But its even worse than punishing a Thought Crime, because they are punishing a specific (and very twisted) interpretation of the image, assuming everyone who views the image has the same bad thoughts about the image. In other words, we cannot assume everyone who owns the image has the same interpretation of the image plus also the context of ownership of the photo totally transforms the reason for owning the photo and so totally transforms the owners thoughts about the photo. For example what if the photo were owned by a psychologist researching the whole subject. Yet this law is punishing people based on the assumption they are viewing the image for a specific bad purpose. Assumptions are not law and should not be law, but this law is based on just such a specific assumption.

Also this whole concept of punishing a Thought Crime is highly contradictory. For example owning a photo of a bank robbery doesn't make someone a bank robber. Yet this violent porn ownership Thought Crime law is trying to make exactly that kind of association.

(If someone once worked at a bank that was robbed, they could very well probably hold onto a photo of something happening there, it wouldn't mean they were a bank robber. There are many interpretations of the image. Maybe someone is researching a film on bank robbers, maybe someone was in a bank when it was robbed, maybe the person with the photo knew someone in the bank photo. Yet this law is punishing for a specific very extreme assumption of intent to own the photo).

Its very ironic the prosecution repeatedly shows the most extreme interpretations of the images they attempt to punish other people for, thereby showing they have some of the most extreme thoughts about image.

[mafoo]

Proxy servers?

What about all the proxy servers cacheing these people's browsing?

Are they now vaults of filth and depravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Luddite crap

That's like suggesting alcoholics should be banned from supermarkets because they might be able to get booze.

[Anonymous Coward]

Im sure it used to be

Innocent until proven guilty, or is it the other way round now?

[Graham Marsden]

It's called "Strict Liability"

Strict liability means that mens rea ("guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to the actus reus ("guilty act") in order for a conviction to be obtained.

In other words the defendant has to prove that the image is *not* "grossly offensive" or "liable to cause serious injury" etc, which is virtually impossible.

Let's hear it for Tick-Box Justice...

[Anonymous Coward]

so what if...

he asks for a number of other counts to be taken into consideration... like every other image on his disc, e.g. Olympic 2012 logo, Gordon Brown, etc, etc...

If they are taken into consideration, then every other copy of those images is also "grossly offensive", and the Police have to make widespread arrests.

To avoid that, the prosecution would have to argue that, e.g. Gordon Brown's face is not "grossly offensive".

Or am I thinking far too logically and consistently? Need some brain stimulant... see icon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous and unfair

I think that it is grossly unfair for someone like Mr Heard to have their name released by the police and published before trial so that whether ir not he is found guilty in the end he will be forever tarnished by it. Grossly unfair and unjust. As for the law itself. The only other law I would like to see made by this incompetent Labour Govt is a law that makes the Labour Party unlawful for treason !!

[Ben Jury]

Is it party specific

While I am completely and utterly against this 'law', and the absolutely shocking way Labour has managed to bring it about, what are the views of the other parties? I haven't read what the Conservatives would do about it if they got into power.

I was going to goggle 'Extreme porn conservatives', but I suspect that would also land me in the clink!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tories

Tories sat on the fence and let it through the lords. However they were against the cartoon pronz so they get half marks.

[GreyWolf]

Who's checking?

>a requirement that Mr Heard does not access the internet or buy any item from which it is possible to use the internet <.

How would the court know if he breached this condition? This is a condition of HIS bail, and therefore places no obligation on his ISP to tell anybody about his use of his connection. Or, he borrows a laptop and goes wardriving, uses someone else's wifi. Who would know?

This is the kind of ignorant stupidity that brings the law into disrepute. Unenforceable law is bad law.

[My Alter Ego]

So what we have is

a bloke who's been deemed guilt before his trial. Is that entirely legal. Any laywers out there?

Does this mean that BDSM clubs are now illegal in this country? If thinking of somebody being harmed for sexual gratification is illegal, surely the actual act is too. Not that making BDSM clubs illegal would curb my social life, but why won't somebody think of the masochists.

[Graham Marsden]

Does this mean that BDSM clubs are now illegal in this country?

No, thanks to Regina vs Church 1996 after the Club Whiplash raid where the CPS tried to get a conviction for "running a disorderly house". The Judge asked the Jury "Do you think this sort of behaviour is acceptable in this day and age" and the Jury said "Yes".

The only problem is that the Operation Spanner case R vs Laskey, Jaggard, Brown et al, says that if you leave marks which are "more than trifling or transient" then you are committing an offence...

Confused? You will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

BDSM clubs legal, related images illegal

Pretty ironic that while it's legal to use a BDSM club in this country it's illegal to make, view or possess images of what goes on in said establishments.

So if Max Mosely was caught with a photo of one of his sessions stored on his own computer would he be in big trouble?

[Anonymous Coward]

...not BDSM...

...but I'd wager bestiality clubs are illegal.

Set one up. Tell the local coppers. See if they arrest you at the first meeting...

[Anonymous Coward]

cartoonified...

If you got a load of furries in, it'd be almost the same as the cartoon equivalent, and maybe it'd be prosecuted the same as the cartoon 'child porn'?

It'd be worth dressing up as a teddy bear to see the headlines and 'incriminating photos'!

[Jeremy 2]

Walking free...

"The issue with the bail condition is that, under Human Rights Law, it could well be argued that this condition is itself a punishment, delivered in advance of court hearing and verdict. As such, it may constitute a breach of the Human Rights Act."

and

"However, if the offences were committed on the dates given, Mr Heard ought to walk free: the extreme porn law did not come into being until 26 January 2009 and is not, as far as we are aware, retrospective in its application."

Don't worry, they'll never let the small matter of that awkward thing we call The Law get in the way of thinking of the children/animals/terrorists/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

and...?

"...portrayed an act which "resulted, or was likely to result in serious injury" to a person's breasts and genitals, as well as images of a person "performing an act of intercourse" with a dog and a horse..."

The witch-hunt squad strikes back.... and caught the voyeur instead of the real sinners that created such material.

Alright then... throw him into the fire and then pray to whatever God you prefer to have pity on his sinful soul but to pray more on the sanity of our demoniac society.

[keddaw]

not retrospective

Indeed, but his possession is current.

[Pete Burgess]

could it be

that those are the dates he downloaded said images, and that they are/were still in his possession after the law came into effect? It would make more sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

have you

cleared your Temporary Internet Files?

And overwritten the deleted files?

[Andus McCoatover]

I find that unlikely.

Plod would surely have confiscated his machines, with content intact to be used as evidence in the event of going to court.

'Course all Plod has to do is give him the machines back, with said filth, then immediately re-nick him as he's now in posession after the Act came into being.

Wouldn't surprise me one iota.

[Matthew 4]

Don't see how this can work?

So they ban cellphones too? Easy as hell to set them up as a bluetooth modem now days.

Same with the neighbours wifi etc etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete FAIL

What an utter load of bollocks, people will be fired from their jobs to meet their bail conditions.

This is yet another example of the entire system getting it completely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Possession?

Many years ago...

Well, I was curious. And I wouldn't go near certain websites now, even if the artists do have Wikipedia entries. No names, but I know I shall not forget them,

And do I have to throw away my backups, because that might be what is needed to avoid an accusation that I'm still in possession of extreme porn.

Would that be an offense going back to 1996? Or thereabouts.

But yeah, the dates are odd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stands to reason

that a silly law will incur all sorts of silly conditions and side effects.

[Anonymous Coward]

Victorian England

Are having these kinds of pictures in books illegal in the UK? This is making the US seem like Sodom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they wanted to get him anyway...

With such a bizarre attempt to prosecute (and before the prosecution, punish) someone who did something that was legal at the time, could it be there was something else the local plod didn't like him for, but they couldn't find anything else to pin on him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed....

... you might be getting closer to the nitty-gritty here. Seems to me an important point is how anyone knew. Either he was very careless about who used/saw his computer, or Mr Plod has been on yet another fishing expedition to get a conviction on anything at all other than some original suspicion or offence they were unable to get past a court.

Ultimately, NuLabour's new Law of Innuendo means it probably doesn't now matter if the guy is innocent or guilty - the damage is being done in advance of trial. If he walks free tomorrow he probably won't have seen the last of Mr Plod now they have his number - hell hath no fury like a policeman scorned. In the meantime everything from family life to employment prospects may have been irretrievably damaged.

Welcome to Banana_Republic_UK.com.... Admittance by funny handshake only...

[BristolBachelor]

How they knew...

It's obvious really, THEY sent the email from a throwaway hotmail account, waited to see a recieved read receipt and then raided his house.

The reason? He complained when plod stopped him taking a picture of a chip shop (or he was tall in Chatham high street; take your pick)

...thinking about it you know, I don't like my old boss...

[Rafael 1]

Here's what to do

....."possessed images which explicitly and realistically portrayed an act which "resulted, or was likely to result in serious injury" to a person's breasts and genitals,"....

Google "Robot Chicken She-Ra TPM" (great subject for a SPAM message!). Watch the video. Now please go to jail.

[Anonymous Coward]

the only hit

is your comment.

That got cleaned up fast, what was it?

[Rafael 1]

She-ra

?? Without the quotes, check the first hit.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/79320/detail/

Toys depicting fictional characters which we may assume are not underage -- is it a crime?

[Chad Larson]

Could cause damage

"Whether this was in the same episode or two subsequent episodes is not made clear."

Ha! Good one!

[David Pollard]

@ AC - "I'm sure it used to be ...

... Innocent until proven guilty."

Actually it used to be innocent unless proven guilty.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Could catch on

Anyone accused of fraud won't be allowed to use money until the case comes to trial?

Motoring offences won't be allowed to use the streets?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it...

What has he done wrong? Never mind the porn, the law is disgusting!

[Steve Swann]

Philosophical Failure

It's almost as though I can't blame the law/police/courts.

I know, thats a shocking point of view, but they are enmired in the same social dross as surrounds the rest of us. They are panicking over the idea of moral standards declining in society, when they have simply failed to realise that it is not morality that is under threat, but reason itself.

Our society is beginning to pride itself on its own stupidity; it's "Accept and Obey" culture'; it's disposable economy and sound-bite politics. It is ceasing to question, reason, critique and is being conditioned to conform, consume and commute instead.

If it was thinking instead; if it was using reason instead then it might just understand this concept:

"Law should protect people, not ideas."

Morality is an idea, pornography is an idea, social concordance itself is an idea, but they aren't people. No one is harmed by these ideas in and of themselves. These things are concepts, and in and of themselves, are harmless; it is only through the activity of people that these concepts are made manifest, and when these actions harm others we should indeed act through law to protect the victims, but when they remain only as ideas then I would submit that no harm is being done.

To pursue the prosecution of an idea, whether expressed by words, images, music, speech or any other media is to prosecute the freedom of thought itself. It is to create the Thought-Crime, to coin an ever cheapening catchphrase. Such activity is surely doomed to failure, as the consciousness cannot be effectively legislated any more than dreams might be. Ergo, the pursuit of such legislation is, in essence, itself directly harmful by its lack of productivity or the disquiet that brings to our otherwise peaceful lives.

So yes, by all means pursue the traffickers, the child pornographers, those who cause suffering to animals, the purveyors of violence and fear, but leave those who hold ideas purely as images alone.

If you cannot leave us to think and dream as we wish, then I know where the shadow of law should really be falling, for it becomes clear where the measure of harm actually arises.

"We are oft to blame in this, - / 'Tis too much proved - that with devotion's visage/ And pious action we do sugar o'er/ The devil himself." - Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1

"I have not come for what you hoped to do. I've come for what you did." ~ V for Vendetta

[Anonymous Coward]

Puritans

It's about time we started covering piano legs again - just in case someone was tempted to put one where the sun don't shine ...

[Juiceman]

Um, how can he help prepare his defense?

Surely he must be allowed to assist in preparing his legal defense? Not likely to do that nowadays without the internet.

[Flocke Kroes]

It is much easier to con someone who cannot communicate

I assume the reason why he is banned from accessing the internet is because a simple web search would show him at least one good defence for the charges against him. The next two steps are to threaten him with draconian punishments and tell him he can avoid them by signing a confession within five minutes.

[ShaggyDoggy]

@ keddaw

"Indeed, but his possession is current"

No it's not, unless the cops let him keep the comps with the images on, which is more than unlikely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bail

This is no different from any other condition placed on bail. Under the Bail Act 1976, a person released or remanded on bail can have conditions attached to that bail. An example used frequently is that someone who has been charged with a serious driving offence can have a temporary driving ban pending trial.

He is at liberty to decline to have the condition attached to his bail, in which case he will be remanded in custody instead. I know which I would prefer.

The court will hear argument from the defendant's lawyers before attaching the condition, and it is very rare for a condition to be imposed that interferes with someone's ability to work.

The Human Rights Act does not come into it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, the Human Rights Act does come into it

"This is no different from any other condition placed on bail."

Except that this one prevents him preparing his defence to the charge.

"He is at liberty to decline to have the condition attached to his bail, in which case he will be remanded in custody instead."

And you think that makes it acceptable for the police to attach arbitrary conditions to his bail?

"The court will hear argument from the defendant's lawyers before attaching the condition, and it is very rare for a condition to be imposed that interferes with someone's ability to work."

It doesn't matter what they usually do. We're talking about what they did in this case.

"The Human Rights Act does not come into it."

It most certainly will if he challenges the bail condition (which he is also entitled to do) and has to go as far as judicial review.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am AC Bail above

""This is no different from any other condition placed on bail."

Except that this one prevents him preparing his defence to the charge."

No it doesn't. All the same materials are available to him as are available to any Defendant, most of which are not on the internet in any event. He's probably actually better off without the internet since, as most lawyers will tell you, a significant amount of so called law on the internet is incorrect anyway. As the matter is being sent to Crown Court, he will almost certainly be entitled to publicly funded representation, which does not require access to the web.

""He is at liberty to decline to have the condition attached to his bail, in which case he will be remanded in custody instead."

And you think that makes it acceptable for the police to attach arbitrary conditions to his bail?"

The conditions were attached by a court, which means he had the opportunity to argue against them. He has been accused of what is classed (rightly or wrongly) as a serious offence, and the court has an obligation to ensure that the public is protected against him continuing to commit the offence whilst on bail.

""The Human Rights Act does not come into it."

It most certainly will if he challenges the bail condition (which he is also entitled to do) and has to go as far as judicial review."

He can of course challenge the condition (which he would do in the Crown Court) but it will still not involve the Human Rights Act. Challenges have been made to bail conditions before on these grounds, but they do not succeed for the simple reason that the convention allows nation states to impose proportionate restrictions on liberty in these circumstances.

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't...

"it is very rare for a condition to be imposed that interferes with someone's ability to work."

It most certainly is not rare - not in my direct experience. And certainly not where bail is for offences likely (possibly calculated) to promote public disgust. Anyone expecting the average magistrate to give a damn about the implications of bail conditions - in the face of often malicious police insistence - is living in a dream world.

You're right about one thing - the Human Rights Act increasingly comes into very little in the UK these days.

[Rocket]

I want to know: what crime this was tagged onto

What else was he doing to have his HD looked at?

Or is the law now able to enter your home and check all your computers, back-ups, C64 & Spectrum tapes ... ?

[Myopic Aardvark]

I hope not

"Or is the law now able to enter your home and check all your computers, back-ups, C64 & Spectrum tapes...?"

I hope not - I'm fairly sure I've still got a copy of Barbarian (okay, that's just a box image) and Sam Foxes Strip poker lying around, and given the quality of the Spectrum graphics, it may be stated that something has "caused harm" to the breasts involved - erm....

Can we just get Judgement Day over and done with? At least with the machines, you know where you stand.

[mark l 2]

bail conditions

Although those bail conditions are harsh they arent much different that lots of other conditions put on suspects who are realeased on bail but haven't been prosecuted. Suspected shoplifters are often put on a ban from entering shopping centres until the trail, people accused assault arent allowed to go near to where the victim lives, somebody suspected of downloading kiddypron will be not allowed to be left unsupervised with children. etc. I do think its a harsh restriction to not be allowed ANY internet access, i would have though that monitored internet access would be a more suitable restriction if they think he is going to go off and download a load more dodgy stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...

Ok... I don't have a problem with people sharing images of people doing whatever they want to do, providing it's with consent. I do have a problem with images of bestiallity where no consent can be given and you can't really argue that the participating parties are designed to have sex with each other.

Now as to the matter of this guy's ban from using the internet, this is nothing new, there are many conditions of bail put upon people. It's quite common for cases of asault to have a "don't go anywhere near the person you may or may not have asaulted" requirement, or for cases of shoplifting to have "don't go into the shop you nicked stuff from." Are these wrong, or is this a special case because it's the internet? I can't say that I've totally made my mind up about this ban, but it doesn't seem to be quite the 'guilty until proven innocent' that many people are suggesting. After all, the main alternative is to put the guy on remand until his trial comes up and that really would be disproportionate.

[Winkypop]

Don't look Ethel !!!

Too late

She looked.

[lukewarmdog]

Hmm

NO INTERNET is something you'd tag onto a hackers bail conditions because it's what they used to perpertrate the alleged crime and because they could probably use it to retrospectively destroy all evidence and cancel their court appearances. It worked for Ferris Bueller so why not.

In this case whilst the images may have been down/uploaded, surely they were first photographed. Is he banned from using a camera? What about banning him from being near animals, or people with genitals and breasts.

I've no real objections to him being banned from the Internet but it seems that the law considers it like a real place when in fact it's nothing like being ASBO'd from a shopping centre.

[Anonymous Coward]

Devils Advocate asks Why?

Yeah, this one I'm doing as AC becase despite clearly playing devils advocate I'd image someone will take this as an admission of something or other and then point it out loudly. This is the interwebs after all. First, a quote to provide context....

"I do have a problem with images of bestiallity where no consent can be given and you can't really argue that the participating parties are designed to have sex with each other."

lets tackle a few words here...

1. Images - "No animals were harmed in the making of this movie." As they are just images, would it improve things if that disclaimer were added to any such picture? Also, when animals are actually abused we call for the RSPCA, not the high court! It almost seems that it is worse to have a picture of animal abuse than it is to actually practice animal abuse!

2. Consent - Erm, we don't need consent from animals for any other reason. We kill them, eat them, harness them to vehicles and tools. Keep them in cages for our amusement. Why is bestiality any different?

3. Designed - Really now. Designed? You're not a creationist are you? Horses weren't designed to fit saddles either. We made saddles to fit them because they suited purpose. The banana is not 'made to be the perfect shape to hold in the hand'.

Right, grabbing my ebil debils coat and legging it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok...

1) When animals are abused it offen ends up in court. Why should bestiallity be any different?

2) Killing and eating an animal or using it for work is very different to bestiallity as there are specific laws, rules, guidelines and governance in place to ensure that the animal doesn't suffer.

3) No, I'm not a creationist, that was a cheap shot, I was using the word 'designed' as shorthand for 'compatible with'. Keeping a dog as a pet is a very different thing, or at least I think it is, from fucking it.

[Naughtyhorse]

And Another Thing.....

What about all those hilarious youtube clips where some spotty herbet thinx hes tony whasisface and tries skating down a handrail only to mis-calculate and end up landing tackle first on a lump of steel, and sliding/scraping his way onto a million inter ffice emails? Now i'm not a medical authority but as the owner and guardian of a pair of harbles myself i'm pretty sure that would risk serious long term if not indeed permanent damage or even total loss of said spheroids. And further it would be hard to make an arguement in favour of consent, as said spotty herbet clearly did not asses the risk and accept it, had he the intelectual capability of doing so, then he would have been holding the camera while his supider mate did the business.

And don't even get me started on tattooing and peircing.

The Law is an Ass, Ant you can trust the good burgers of my old hometown not to notice.

Now do you see why i left :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

can't the authorities go after the producers not the (stupid) consumers?

I suppose the idiotic consumers are 'guilty of making an image' by the act of downloading it, even if by accident - as everything is now recorded with deep packet inspection, and GCESGHQ know where you live! whilst to stop the producers of extreme pr0n , PCPLOD'd have to go after nasty rich men who live in big villas in foreign lands and are friends/business acquaintances with their local PCPLOD? badgers!???

[Anonymous Coward]

all we can say

All we can say is how long till our next Jenkins, to bring us back to a more civilised society.

[Mark .]

@Fraser

"I do have a problem with images of bestiallity where no consent can be given and you can't really argue that the participating parties are designed to have sex with each other."

The last case involving "bestiality" was a faked joke image.

But let's suppose we were talking about actual images - the problem is that this law is nothing to do with dealing with animal cruelty. Will the police be hunting down the source of these images? No - it's simply a case of criminalising people because the image is disgusting. I don't condone animal cruelty. OTOH, if Rover the dog gets himself off humping someone, I'm not sure where the cruelty is, nor am I sure why taking a photo makes it cruel.

"Now as to the matter of this guy's ban from using the internet, this is nothing new, there are many conditions of bail put upon people. It's quite common for cases of asault to have a "don't go anywhere near the person you may or may not have asaulted" requirement, or for cases of shoplifting to have "don't go into the shop you nicked stuff from." Are these wrong, or is this a special case because it's the internet?"

Are you seriously suggesting that not going into a single shop is comparable to a complete ban on the entire Internet?

"After all, the main alternative is to put the guy on remand until his trial comes up and that really would be disproportionate."

Well that says it all - yes, putting someone in prison because they might look at a picture is disproportionate. Just because a complete ban on Internet isn't quite as disproportionate, doesn't mean it isn't still disproportionate.

"When animals are abused it offen ends up in court. Why should bestiallity be any different?"

By all means, if someone has abused an animal, feel free to prosecute them. Is there evidence that the person in this case has done this?

Furthermore, last time I looked *images* of animal abuse were entirely legal. So by your own argument, why should images of bestiality be any different?

[corrie]

Justice? where..

putting aside for a moment that this guy is being charged with a crime that requires no victim, or even proof of endangerment for conviction. And putting aside also the moral distinctions between oral pleasure (eating) and other less harmful but nonetheless illegal activity's.

How exactly is this guy supposed to prepare a defense when 90% of human knowledge has now been denied to him... I mean the fact that we apparently punish people before any conviction is bad enough, but this directly interferes with his ability to put up a viable defense. Its equivalent to being banned from reading books fifty years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

The way the law is going ...

... I'm going to be sued for assault for my activities on WoW. My dwarf killed some beasties yesterday, now I'm waiting for the police, PETA and the RSPCA to turn up and confiscate my computer, wife, kids, and books.

When do I have a chance to recant?

Oh and one of the monsters I killed looked female, I dread the wrath of Harriet Harman for that one.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: The way the law is going ...

Look out! Satire!

[Anonymous Coward]

If...

...he's watching pictures/videos of a woman sucking off a horse surely the only cruelty or exploitation is to the woman. The horse probably quite likes it.

As for extreme porn with beating etc some folks like that and have made careers out of it. The whole thing has fuck all to do with the cops.

Half the point of the net is for people to rubber-neck at all sorts of fucked up shit. Who hasn't spent time on Rotten.com or seeing what two girls can indeed do utilising only one beverage container?

Or videos of people getting hit by trains or getting kicked in the nuts...?

[Anonymous Coward]

<title/>

If there is blanket permission to possess images of acts that are legal to commit, you legalise the possession of pr0n of 16/17-year olds, who often still lack the maturity and understanding regarding their actions which might be expected of adults.

If there is blanket permission to possess images of acts that are illegal to commit, you legalise the possession of CP.

If there is a blanket ban on images of illegal acts, you stifle legitimate discussion and wipe out a lot of the witness and prosecution evidence.

If you make possession of the image legal but creating and/or distributing the image illegal, that would seem logically very strange.

If you make distinctions based on the content, you are engaging in censorship and create the slippery slope that we are dealing with right now.