While I don't agree that he should've ended up on the sex offenders register, the whole problem wasn't actually the masterbation itself: it was the fact that he was on public property (may have paid for the room, but it still isnt his), and it classes as indecent exposure which is illegal. Clearly he was offending the cleaners for them to report it.
Although, it is a bit of an over reaction on their part. So some people have weird turn ons. If he'd have been in full drag, or actually having sex with a woman/man they wouldn't have said anything I'll bet.
ok. theres been some talk of the legal positions of certain sexual activities, so instead of going OT this thread contains an article on illegal sexual activites.
im going to be doing a blog post on the law and sex when ive got past theese exams. think its number 10 im my list of blog posts so it will be sometime next week, so its an area of interest to me.
R V brown is one of the main ones in the area of sex. its based on the ideas of assault and S/M practices. unfortunatley the legal precidents havent been changed since the 1997 review ( in light of the HRA). http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993/ this is the rather long ruling and obiter ( other things said) a wiki link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown
the recent laws on pornographic images isnt something im too familiar with atm.
To avoid off topicness in the previous thread (Wow, who would of expected that from me... I shock myself sometimes...)Here was my post and a few links.
--------------------------------------
The law is no longer even that liberal on sexual images. You can commit an offence by taking part in consentual S/M. An image only has to 'portray' a 'realistic' account of an offence.
Basically if it looks dodgy enough, it doesn't matter if it actually WAS dodgy. Great way to run justice ey?
How this affects the kink community is primary this line:
"An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals."
it does actually make exceptions for some things, like if you have absolutley no knowlage of the images. or youve found them on your computer ( if there there from a virus or something) and you delete them. S 65 (1-2)
Basically if it looks dodgy enough, it doesn't matter if it actually WAS dodgy. Great way to run justice ey?
not true. if an image is part of a series and that one image looks dodgy it can be seen in the context of the other images in the series. eg if thres a still from a sex scene in a movie, eg the matrix reloaded ( crap example but its the only one i can think of), it can be viewed as part of the movie.
(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) 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;and section 63(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image is pornographic.
oh and also if you can prove consent to anyhting ( that can legally be consented to) you're fine. it is up to the defendant to prove this. and if you can prove its not a corpse too :S
oh and also if you can prove consent to anyhting ( that can legally be consented to) you're fine. it is up to the defendant to prove this. and if you can prove its not a corpse too :S
it does actually make exceptions for some things, like if you have absolutley no knowlage of the images. or youve found them on your computer ( if there there from a virus or something) and you delete them. S 65 (1-2)
Basically if it looks dodgy enough, it doesn't matter if it actually WAS dodgy. Great way to run justice ey?
not true. if an image is part of a series and that one image looks dodgy it can be seen in the context of the other images in the series. eg if thres a still from a sex scene in a movie, eg the matrix reloaded ( crap example but its the only one i can think of), it can be viewed as part of the movie.
(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) 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;and section 63(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image is pornographic.
I admit it was a generalisation but I believe it is, on the whole, a fair one. You do not need to be involved in non-consentual actions to be considered guilty. It only needs to look non-consentual or look like it breaches one of the clauses to be guilty. In my opinion that is wrong. If I looked like I was shop lifting I wouldn't be charged, I would rightly be considered innocent until I committed a crime... Looking like you done something wrong isn't really the way to run a justice system. But of course under this law by doing an act that looks guilty you are doing something wrong, hence the problems with it.
For that reason, consent isn't strictly relevant (a jury however may think otherwise, but that is not the issue) to the law. The offence is in possessing something 'extreme' and the content of that image, not the context in which it was taken, it only has to look 'extreme' and that could include consensual kinkiness!
"The law would cover images whether or not the participants consented, and would include not only images where extreme violence is taking place, but also fictitious images where people are role playing such violence."
The law has been criticised for criminalising images where no crime took place in their creation. In the House of Lords debates, Lord Wallace of Tankerness stated "Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to me to make sense."
I admit it was a generalisation but I believe it is, on the whole, a fair one. You do not need to be involved in non-consentual actions to be considered guilty. It only needs to look non-consentual or look like it breaches one of the clauses to be guilty. In my opinion that is wrong. If I looked like I was shop lifting I wouldn't be charged, I would rightly be considered innocent until I committed a crime... Looking like you done something wrong isn't really the way to run a justice system. But of course under this law by doing an act that looks guilty you are doing something wrong, hence the problems with it.
For that reason, consent isn't strictly relevant (a jury however may think otherwise, but that is not the issue) to the law. The offence is in possessing something 'extreme' and the content of that image, not the context in which it was taken, it only has to look 'extreme' and that could include consensual kinkiness!
IF you look guilty it will go to trial. on the wiki link there was a case where someone had a comedy animation involving an fake tiger ( i think ive seen it) a jury and a judge will examine the case, because that person looked guilty. they wern't and it was found as such. the principles of "irrefutable proof" guards against this. if you looked like you were guilty of shoplifting you would also go to trial if there was enough proof similarly.
consent has a hell of a lot do do with this law! if you are recorded doing such acts and can prove your consent then there is no basis for prosecution under this law, it says as such in the statute in express terms
66 Defence: participation in consensual acts
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“D”) is charged with an offence under section 63, and
(b) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within paragraphs (a) to (c) (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7) of that section.
(2) It is a defence for D to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
(c) if the image portrays an act within section 63(7)(c), that what is portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.
(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is “non-consensual” harm if—
(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or
(b) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted.
That example doesn't apply because as mentioned in the law the image must be pornographic, i.e for sexual arousal, and you clearly stated it was a comedy piece.
Regardless of the legal status I still consider the situation horrifically unjust. Even going that far into the legal process can damage someone mentally, or their reputation, job status etc... Which I believe is morally indefensible and an intrusion upon the defendants personal life, of which the state has no right to interfare unless there is genuine 'harm'. Most people expect the law to represent morality and justice. If it does not then they consider it unjust on a moral level, as I do with some aspects of this law.
The issue of consent is addressed in the footnotes of the law and the government recommendation, the interpretation of the law is of course just as important as the actual law and thankfully 'gets people off' when the letter of the law is draconian.
The Government consultation states "whether or not they notionally or genuinely consent to take part"; and "actual scenes or realistic depictions".
Laws like this always allow abuse of such law (like the tiger image person). Certain groups have been persecuted before for what is effectively dissent from the norm and laws like this can be used to effectively criminalise non-criminal acts.
If you want to read up on curious sex laws Australia is leading the pack (along with US states that make using a sex toy illegal) Violet Blue wrote an article on Aussie mandness
It includes censorship of women with A cups, banning female ejaculation describing it as abhorrent and saying it's urine. Oh really?
There is also a man in Australia registered as a sex offender for posessing sexual images of The Powder Puff Girls and The Simpsons. Weirdo, quite possibly, but not a crime I would have thought....
If you want to read up on curious sex laws Australia is leading the pack (along with US states that make using a sex toy illegal) Violet Blue wrote an article on Aussie mandness
It includes censorship of women with A cups, banning female ejaculation describing it as abhorrent and saying it's urine. Oh really?
There is also a man in Australia registered as a sex offender for posessing sexual images of The Powder Puff Girls and The Simpsons. Weirdo, quite possibly, but not a crime I would have thought....
I read about those ones in bold recently...
But don't very few cartoon characters actually have ages... I imagine legal problems trying to prove some cartoons are below the age of consent!External Media Is it ok to have kinky cartoons of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (ignoring the turtle bit for now...)?
Wouldn't of happened when we were in chargeExternal Media
It's the A cup law that upsets me most. It's communicating to women that if you're smaller busted you don't qualify as a woman. There's serious problems with creepy porn but spreading ignorance just isn't the solution.
heh i guess im quite lucky cause i can interperet the law in a legal sense, i cant find the legal reccomendations part. and anyway the reccomendations are just that. the judiciary can depart from them as they whish
yes its terrible that innocent people have to face trial, but cases like the tiger one its not always obvious that its fake, in that case it was only found out when the clips were played with sound. plus theres the whole meta ethical thoughts on trying the innocent so the guilty dont escape justice.
abuse of the law is a very touchy subject. often material facts and evidence does not get shown to the public so you have to treas very carefully when acussing laws of being unjust. the laws are there to keep vunerable people protected ( eg childeren) though I disagee with this law, i cant just go round saying its unjust when i dont know all the facts and evidence!
