Beware UK users of Eunuch Archive

[Maya67 (imported)]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm

The linked news item from the BBC should be read by all those in the UK. The law is changing on the type of item and pornography you are allowed to view. This will affect viewing the archive as this has connections with injury to genitals not that being castrated or having your genitals removed surgically is causing injury but the law makers in this country are some what puritanical.

As defined by the new Criminal Justice Bill

An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life

An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals

An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse

A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

So this may be my only post.

Maya

[ramses (imported)]

There are no pictures here. Does the law cover stories too?

[BossTamsin (imported)]

As near as I can tell, this is the relevant section of the legalese involved in the legislation (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... .html#j400) (or at least a chunk of it):

Possession of extreme pornographic images

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.

(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—

(a) pornographic, and

(b) an extreme image.

(3) An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image appears to have been so produced is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the image itself, and

(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

(5) So, for example, where—

(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and

(b) it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,

the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—

(a) a

n act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,

(b) an act which results in or appears to result

(or be likely to result)

in serious injury to a person

’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) a

n act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,

(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal,

where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.

(7) In this section “image” means—

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or

(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

(8) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).

(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but judging by how many times the word "image" is referenced, and the definitions of "image" that are given, I would assume that the law does not apply to anything other than pictures and movies. It seems that text descriptions of such acts are not covered by this law. Remember though, this is just my opinion, and not a form of legal advice.

[tjstill (imported)]

Does anyone know what is covered by image in this context? Does it have to be "real" or would it cover cartoons and computer generated images? I am not sure how a lot of computer games would pass as there is a lot of gory death in those. Thanks for the information.

[Kangan (imported)]

Big Brother is alive and well.

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

My reading of 7(a) and 7(b) would seem to indicate that it would cover computer images and cartoons. --FLO--

[Batman (imported)]

There are some Avatars that are 'after' shots...would they be considered illegal?

That's the only EA images, that and the artwork on the front page...

Batman

[Paolo]

Yeah, and lot of the art in my family Bible is violent and pornographic, too.

Is THAT now illegal?

And for all the lawmakers reading EA - come out of the closet, you cowardly bastards...then go and mind your own damn business. No one gives a FUCK what YOU think anyway.

Better yet, DO email me and come to the MOM this year.

We'll 'discuss' your legal opinions and such matters - provided the Sister still has somewhere to hide the bodies when we're done.

[Riverwind (imported)]

I think someone in the UK needs to get a clarification as to just what this new law is about and how it will effect our members in the UK.

More freedoms taken away for our own good, if this keeps up we will be right back in the middle ages.

Of course we all know were the blame is, religion as a whole or in part by the many factions fighting to have there view of the world be the only view.

but thats just my opinion,

River

[eefje46 (imported)]

Don't we have freedom of speech? I'am glad they don't control my brain.The british should all stand up for their rights. It is so that if politician's feel insecure then regular people are cut in their freedom. I woul'd say don't bother. They can't control every puter. And when they find something just go to jail, it is going to be crowded there. Then you can't have baby pics of your kids anymore. It is totally ridiculus.