missturbation
Posts: 8290
Joined: 2/12/2006 From: another planet Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I find no vagueness whatever. It criminalises every picture of any act falling under s&m, and possibly also every picture of any act involving bondage as a separate activity to s&m, and possibly even every picture of any act in which one or more parties are being humiliated -which can be interpreted to be as the result of fear. The only question now, is whether I get a male or female prison, it seems. E Yeah but then they are vague about who will be charged and who will not. It looks to me as though its all going to be whether you can prove it was consensual and that you werent afraid at the time. Now i dont know about anyone else but some of the best play i have had has scared me to some degree. In what way is it vague on that point? It says that at the second threshold, it need only to "appear to be real acts" and to "convey a realistic impression of fear, violence or harm". Further it indicates that consensuality does not mean an image would fall outside the law. In practice perhaps, (perhaps), the law is aimed at those images for which it was drafted, in response to those images portraying acts leading to the apparent death of a participant, following the strangulation of a woman by a man inspired by such images. The way the excerpt you posted reads however, it covers every possible instance of a portrayal of s&m, as well as possibly images of bondage and humiliation. E Lady E, I don't want to argue with you on this In my opinion it comes across as we'll charge you if we want to and we won't if we don't. For me a law like this should be handled a little better and not infringing on peoples safe, sane and consensual lifestyle.
_____________________________
What you don't witness with your eyes, don't witness with your mouth. Proverb. If it fit's in a toaster, i can cook it. Buying 10 item's or less is not shopping !!
|