Quote:

The Scottish legal authorities have no time for criminals who – unsportingly – try to change their behaviour in order to avoid committing criminal acts and ending up in court. That is the strange conclusion that follows from a reply we received last week from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which is responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland. Following queries from our readers, we put a series of questions over the soon-to-be-commenced Scottish extreme porn law. We asked whether the Crown Office intended issuing guidelines, as has happened south of the border, to enable those unclear over the precise scope of the law to delete any images that might get them in trouble. A spokesman told us: "We do not publicly disclose our prosecution policy in relation to specific offences as to do so may allow offenders to adapt or restrict their behaviour to conduct which falls short of our prosecution threshold." They added that any such information would also be exempt from any attempt to tease it out by using Freedom of Information legislation. Jennie Kermode, a Glasgow-based campaigner and writer for film review site Eye for Film told us: "The problem with the Crown Office's position in this instance is that, with the best will in the world, people cannot be expected to adhere to a law they do not understand. In the case of a crime like murder, it's pretty simple – don't kill people." She added: "In this case, what the law says is that people may possess some images but not others; how are they to know which ones are okay? "This kind of law has a chilling effect on activity not actually considered criminal, much as the infamous Section 2A (clause 28 in England) restricted discussion of homosexuality far beyond its original mandate due to its lack of clarity. Such intentional obfuscation goes against the spirit of our legal system." The Scottish extreme porn law is not yet in effect. It was passed by the Scottish Parliament, as s42 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and is similar in most respects to the English version of that law, banning possession of pictures depicting extreme violent sexual activity with humans (and any sex at all with animals). However, it goes a step further, adding any depiction of "rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity" to the list of categories a jury will have to ponder over. As the Crown Office pointed out: the precise date on which a law is commenced is a matter for the Scottish Government. We also asked why it had ignored calls by campaigners for this law to be referred to the UK Supreme Court voluntarily, in order to ensure it did not breach human rights. The Office declined to answer this directly, suggesting instead it was up to the courts to decide on such matters. ®

Scotland bans smut. What smut? Won't say ? The Register

Okay, so the increasing use of legislation as a means of social policy means that we're getting more and more nosensical/inconstitutional/unenforceable/badly written laws in all domains. Censorship is more of a market leader than an exception, I guess because it attracts well-meaning but frequently (and this is not to be gratuitously nasty or anything) kind of slow politicians like flies.

I honestly have no idea what they teach in Oxbridge PPE degrees these days. "Make all the bad stuff illegal", it would seem.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

FFS. I want to emigrate!

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Single complaint sparks police raid and total ban on rental movie ? The Register

Quote:

Northampton police have seized A Serbian Film from Blockbusters, despite the fact that the version on offer had been approved by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). The raid’s chilling effect was instant, with Blockbuster taking down links to the film from their website and removing it from from stores across the UK, presumably while their lawyers consider their position. An official statement from Northampton Police yesterday suggests that it was all a bit of a misunderstanding: the "gentleman’s agreement" to the effect that police and prosecuting authorities will leave alone material that has been classified by the BBFC remains intact, and the film can now go back on hire. However, the story is a powerful reminder of the devastating effect a single complaint can have on a national business. Northamptonshire Police explained that a member of the public had reported the film on the grounds that it contained images of child abuse – and queried whether the copy being rented was in fact the same version as that approved by the BBFC. A spokeswoman for that force said: "We have a duty to investigate such claims and in agreement with the manager of the shop took a copy away to view and check that it was the edition that has been approved by the British Board of Film Classification for distribution. "It has been established as a legitimate copy of the film that has been approved for distribution by the BBFC and so is being returned to the shop." BBFC spokeswoman Sue Clark told us: "We can confirm that we have classified this film '18' with cuts and that in doing so we would have taken account of all relevant UK laws. We have a close relationship with the law enforcement agencies who keep us abreast of what is likely to fall foul of the law. We would not have given the film a certificate if we had considered it in breach of any UK law." We were first alerted to the raid this week. A quick check on the Blockbuster website revealed that A Serbian Film was, indeed, no longer to be found. A search revealed only a standard apology from Blockbuster: "We're sorry, but the title you requested could not be displayed. This may have occurred because the title is temporarily out of stock, or has been removed from our database." On requesting the film from a branch, we were told by the store manager that it had been pulled nationally. However, a quick check of cached pages confirmed that it had been on Blockbuster’s site at least as recently as 15 January. Would-be viewers interested in renting this work – the tale of a porn star being lured into participating in ever more extreme, violent and pornographic scenes through the administration of large quantities of drugs and money – are presented with the Blockbuster equivalent of a government health warning. Its write-up begins: "This film contains material that may not be suitable for sensitive viewers. Filmmaker Srdjan Spasojevic pushes the boundaries of what can (or should) be shown on screen in this violent and malignly erotic thriller". This was confirmed by our helpful manager – who preferred to remain anonymous for reasons of job security – who admitted that he had watched the film "in order to see what all the fuss was about” and that “it had made him feel physically sick". He added: "I cannot imagine why anyone would want to watch something like that." We did ask Blockbuster for an official comment, but none was forthcoming. ®

Actually, this is a pretty good point being made. I mean, ASF is certainly illegal under British law, whatever the cops may or may not choose to prosecute. Presumably in order to classify it the BBFC had to own a copy and, as we all know, possession is illegal. Can we therefore prosecute the BBFC for being a bunch of filthy perverts?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Also, I hate IMDB. It is useless.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Also, I hate IMDB. It is useless.

It has its use. I like watching trailers and actors' filmography on it. But, for more dedicated/smaller scale stuff, try: Film buffs community filmaster.com

I am Gilles_de_Rais there as well...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Actually, this is a pretty good point being made. I mean, ASF is certainly illegal under British law...

What is ASF?

Quote:

... whatever the cops may or may not choose to prosecute. Presumably in order to classify it the BBFC had to own a copy and, as we all know, possession is illegal. Can we therefore prosecute the BBFC for being a bunch of filthy perverts?

And the police itself when they start reviewing said material?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

It has its use. I like watching trailers and actors' filmography on it. But, for more dedicated/smaller scale stuff, try: Film buffs community filmaster.com I am Gilles_de_Rais there as well...

Most of the time I'm just looking up a plot point (In this case - does a baby get fucked in A Serbian Film or not? The answer is yes.) - IMDB has about 50 alternative summaries for everything and they're all equally useless. Wikipedia is king.

Quote:

What is ASF?

A Serbian Film.

Quote:

And the police itself when they start reviewing said material?

Hahaha - it's just like the lurgy.

And the thing is, no one's going to believe this but I don't actually like torture porn. I've never seen a single episode of the Saw franchise or Hostel or The Human Centipede or, indeed, A Serbian Film. And I don't intend to; this stuff creeps me out something fierce.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.