Anime and Manga, one step closer to being illegal in the UK!!

[Sokar]

I can't believe so many people still misunderstand this bill. This is a perfectly well written bill. The people who write this bills are typically lawyers, so they know what they are talking about. The most common profession for a House or Senate member in America is lawyer, I would assume it's the same for U.K. legislature. Let's parse this bill together shall we.

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

The first clause tells you about what would be considered a crime, which is "possession of an extreme pornographic image." Thus non-pornographic media are exempt from this bill.

The problem of course, is the definition of the term "extreme pornographic images"? How do you separate the non-extreme images from extreme ones? How do you separate pornographic images from non-pornographic ones? Thus we have clause 2.

(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.

OH, LOLZ, IT'S SO OBVIOUZ. Yes, but it has to be stated. First notice the (a) AND (b) setup, which means that both criteria have to fulfilled for an image to be "extremely pornographic". This is important, since an OR here will make all porno illegal. Also, this division of the terms pornographic and extreme allows for further definition, which gives us clauses 3 through 6.

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.

Clauses 3, 4, and 5 go into the definition of what constitutes a pornographic image. Clause 3 defines pornographic as "an image that produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." While Clauses 4 and 5 go into deeper into the "solelt or principally" part of Clause 3, which puts more limitations onto the definition of pornographic. So an movie which may have some titillating scenes will not defined as pornographic if the movie as a whole was not "produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", so the James Bond films that have sexy scenes in it are spared the identification of being pornographic.

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

Clause 6 defines the term extreme. The definitions here are pretty obvious and everyone should understand them. Common questions being asked here are "does this mean everything that has death in it will be banned?" NO. REMEMBER CLAUSE 2. The image will have to be both "extreme" and "pornographic" for it to be an "extreme pornographic" image. Thus an extreme image by itself does not violate this bill. Hurrah! Movies with tons of gore in it like Rambo are now saved!!!

But we are not done yet. We have defined "extreme" and "pornographic", but we still haven't defined "image". Luckily clause 7 does it for us.

(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).

This is the first part of the bill where legalese comes into play. Basically when you write a bill, you must defined each important term in the bill. For bills the first clause is basically the bill in a nut shell, then the bill goes into more detail. Thus all the relevant terms in the first clause must be defined. However, legal terms may not have the same definitions as terms in regular everyday use. This clause basically says that the word "image" in this bill have the same meaning as the word "image" in everyday life. Yes it's redundant, but it's done for the public's sake. It also states that digital images still count as images, even though they are just a bunch of 1s and 0s.

The main part is over, let's just go over the rest quickly, since this is getting long.;

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

Furthering tightening the rules. The law still applies if the body parts (anus, breast, genitals) mentioned in clause 6 b) are surgically constructed instead of natural.

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.

Basically says that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, only the state have the power to pursue these charges. Not civil charges can be filed.

What about Scotland you say? Well, Scotland have significant autonomy and pass a lot of their own laws. So this law doesn't apply there. If you live in the U.K and want to watch kinky porn, better move to Scotland.

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

The only thing I can think of adding is; Will banning porn of any kind prevent it from happening. It almost seems similar to the Probation in the US.

No, the bill bans "extreme pornographic images". Not all pornographic images.

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

I like that part. It demonstrates nicely the level of intelligence of the people who formulate such laws.

That part of the bill is crucial, especially the AND part. It also serves to separate the terms "extreme" and "pornographic" so they can be defined even further. Without clause 2 the bill would be have rather poorly written.

This bill is actually a quite well written bill, it's very linear, each term is defined clearly, and there's not much legalese in there. Hopefully this clears up any confusions people might have.

[Slice of Life]

OH, LOLZ, IT'S SO OBVIOUZ.

Yes indeed. If I wanted to waste my time I could grab a longer legal text from the net and point out all such constructions that are not further explained. An “extreme pornographic image” is an "image" that is both "extreme" and "pornographic". What else? "A big white house" is a house that is both white and big, not white or big, by the rules of grammar and verbal logic, not law. And by formulating a legal text you already take for granted that these rules are understood. One might (and probably will) consider it necessary to further define "big" "white" and "house" here, but not how these three words constitute a phrase. Maybe anglo-saxon lawyers think that a big white house might be a white house that isn't big or a big house that isn't white except if it's explicitly stated somewhere that both must be the case. Too bad for US-Americans, Brits, Australians, etc. if this is true. But I wonder how they kept the US constitution at (*googles*) 4400 words if this is the case. But for most people, including most lawyers and lawmakers, this is indeed "obviouz".

What was the topic again? Somebody is trying to limit freedom of expression because he doesn't like certain pictures. Please go on.

[WanderingKnight]

No, the bill bans "extreme pornographic images". Not all pornographic images.

It bans the possesion of images, when it should be banning the production (of images that were produced at the injury of the portrayed).

Syntactics and semantics aside, that's the most important part of the "wrongness" of the bill.

[Supah Em]

good thing im not in UK or else id bring in thousands of otakus to the parliament and let them play night shift nurses or something there

[Rookie103]

Originally Posted by supahem

good thing im not in UK or else id bring in thousands of otakus to the parliament and let them play night shift nurses or something there

I'd pay to see that.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Yes indeed. If I wanted to waste my time I could grab a longer legal text from the net and point out all such constructions that are not further explained. An “extreme pornographic image” is an "image" that is both "extreme" and "pornographic". What else? "A big white house" is a house that is both white and big, not white or big, by the rules of grammar and verbal logic, not law. And by formulating a legal text you already take for granted that these rules are understood. One might (and probably will) consider it necessary to further define "big" "white" and "house" here, but not how these three words constitute a phrase. Maybe anglo-saxon lawyers think that a big white house might be a white house that isn't big or a big house that isn't white except if it's explicitly stated somewhere that both must be the case. Too bad for US-Americans, Brits, Australians, etc. if this is true. But I wonder how they kept the US constitution at (*googles*) 4400 words if this is the case. But for most people, including most lawyers and lawmakers, this is indeed "obviouz".

The statement is obvious, yes, but it's also there for the public's sake. A ciminal bill often has very obvious definitions in it as to make the interpretation of the bill very straightforward. This way these is no ambigiouity. Also, the separation of the words pornographic and extreme makes it easier to define them later. It's basically making a list and then following up items on that list.

On a separate and completely unrelatedly note, the U.S. constitution was made to be very broad and ambigious, allowing for different interpretation. Just look at the recent Supreme Court case regarding gun control, where they were arguing over the how the clauses of the second amendment are to be interpretated. You do not want that to be happening with a criminal bill like this one. The added obvious clauses really narrowly define the criminal act.

What was the topic again? Somebody is trying to limit freedom of expression because he doesn't like certain pictures. Please go on.

The topic is that the OP said the bill can lead to the ban of normal anime, which it does not. It caused people a lot of confusion. People were taking out parts of the bill and thinking it would mean all media with violence in it. I parsed through the bill, taking the bill as a whole and explained what the bill actually does. Hopefully people like Rookie103 won't think that the bill will ban every game, movie, and the like which shows "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life."

Here's the relevant part of OP's post

Originally Posted by Tiamat's Disciple

The law is supposedly to stop extreme porn, such as necrophilia, bestiality and the likes of snuff movies. It moves the onus off the publisher and onto the consumer, and as a result the consumer can face jail time.

The law itself isn't a bad law, and it's one that's been needed for a while. However it's been rushed through, and is so vague and ambiguous that it in reality covers pretty much every movie made of late.

OP's fears are completely unfounded. OP actually supports the restrictions that the bill places on extreme porn, but fears it will lead to a lot more. My reading of the bill, and most people's reading I would imagine, say this is not the case.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It bans the possesion of images, when it should be banning the production (of images that were produced at the injury of the portrayed).

Syntactics and semantics aside, that's the most important part of the "wrongness" of the bill.

This actually merits discussion.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It bans the possesion of images, when it should be banning the production (of images that were produced at the injury of the portrayed). Syntactics and semantics aside, that's the most important part of the "wrongness" of the bill.

Originally Posted by Sokar

This actually merits discussion.

Indeed it does. The most common argument I've come across in favour of such legislation posits that the law ought to reflect the moral values of the country. So, when the majority of a country's population believe such "extreme and pornographic" images to be evil and harmful, it's not hard to understand why they would support such bills.

In countries with diverse races, cultures and sensibilities, careless individuals can often cause harm through the abuse of total freedom of expression. Of course, I'd like to point such countries to the example of the United States, but sometimes, the comparison can only go so far.

If we accept that different people will have different standards of right and wrong, then we cannot outright accuse other people of being stupid for passing such legislation.

Underlying all this hoo-ha is the implicit assumption that necrophila, bestiality, extreme sado-masochism and snuff films are wrong. Personally, I don't find that very hard to accept. Of course, if we're asking whether the media can influence people to try such activities, I wouldn't be as certain, but I can't deny the possibility of some influence.

Which is why I brought up the context earlier. This is the UK we're talking about, where people have a fierce tradition of fighting for individual rights, including the right of free expression. Bearing that in mind, I find it extremely difficult to imagine a day when a British government would use these laws to ban anime (or any media product) arbitrarily. Where bans do occur (as with Manhunt 2), it's always for a reason. You may not agree, but others do. It's a contentious issue, and in a democracy, I guess we do have to live with majority opinion from time to time.

[WanderingKnight]

Underlying all this hoo-ha is the implicit assumption that necrophila, bestiality, extreme sado-masochism and snuff films are wrong. Personally, I don't find that very hard to accept.

It's wrong to harm someone to produce such an image--that's what I don't find hard to accept. I do find hard to accept that they should be punishing me if I happen to like that sort of stuff (on a fantasy level) and I produce or watch a film or an image without actually harming anyone. This includes unreal depictions such as drawings.

As always, mind your own business, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

[black monster]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

As always, mind your own business, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

i don't think that this is right becuse you may touch someone's life without knowing it

for example the people who work atthe newspaper they are minding there own business. you read what thay wrote and you may get angry, sad, or your feelings might get hurt.

that goes for everyone. either someone you know, or someone you don't know.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It's wrong to harm someone to produce such an image--that's what I don't find hard to accept. I do find hard to accept that they should be punishing me if I happen to like that sort of stuff (on a fantasy level) and I produce or watch a film or an image without actually harming anyone.

I share your sentiments, but unfortunately, we do not live in countries of one person each. If you're lucky enough to live in a country with liberal attitudes towards the uses of media, good for you. For those of us who do not, we can either choose to seethe in anger, or try to see the other point of view, to understand their concerns and hopefully change their minds in the future.

Regardless of our relative positions on the uses of media, we should never forget that people may be harmed in the production of such images. I believe that is what this piece of legislation is attempting to address. Rather than shouting, OMGZ, MEDIA NAZIS, I'd prefer to observe how British judges apply this law in future cases before passing judgement on its efficacy.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by black monster

i don't think that this is right becuse you may touch someone's life without knowing it

for example the people who work atthe newspaper they are minding there own business. you read what thay wrote and you may get angry, sad, or your feelings might get hurt.

that goes for everyone. either someone you know, or someone you don't know.

People don't have a right to never see or hear anything they disagree with or not get their feelings hurt. Harming others is generally considered to either something physical, or emotionally tramatic. We can't just consider every little thing harmful or we'd have to stop all interaction with other people.

If something is just offensive, they have every right to say, write, draw, or whatever it. If we draw the line of what is and isn't free speech at what can be considered offensive, then we no longer have free speech. I mean what is there that can't be considered offensive to some people?

[black monster]

i believe that everyone is allowed to say what they want to say

i didn't say that people shouldn't say a thing what i was saying is that everyone can be harmed anywhere anytime.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It's wrong to harm someone to produce such an image--that's what I don't find hard to accept. I do find hard to accept that they should be punishing me if I happen to like that sort of stuff (on a fantasy level) and I produce or watch a film or an image without actually harming anyone. This includes unreal depictions such as drawings.

As always, mind your own business, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

I agree that the focus should be on punishing the producers and not the people who happen to have the content. The belief is probably that there are already laws in place to punish the producers, but the producers - already most likely knowingly defying the law - are much harder to catch than the average person. If you catch enough people and make it a social taboo/stigma then there will be no business and no incentive for the producers to continue, and eventually it'll go away. I can see where that line of reasoning would appeal, but history has already shown that it doesn't work. Alcohol, drugs, prostitution - these things don't disappear even when they're totally banned. Although much more low-profile, child pornography still seems to be produced as well.

The only part of your statement that I disagree with is that "it's wrong to harm someone to produce such an image." I'd say that it's wrong to harm someone against their will. Think of movie stuntmen, or entertainment fighters - these people risk injury (sometimes death) or are injured as part of the job. Does that make it wrong, if they know what they're getting into? Why should violent/extreme porn be any different? If it's because there's sex attached to it, then you'd be better off fighting porn itself. If you've never watched porn and had sex before, then at least you've probably heard what I'm about to say: they're very different.

The fear over regular porn was that people would develop strange fetishes or have weird expectations about how sex would be. According to The Guide to Getting it On (a massive manual on sex - girlfriend got it for free, don't ask) there's been a history of fears about sex in the media, starting as early as the 1930s. People did somewhat shift their behavior and expectations based upon what they saw in movies, which only means that parents/people need to talk and explain that there's a difference. That leads to another argument: is it fair to force parents who are uncomfortable with discussing sex with their children to do so, or would it be more fair to remove that material from society so that nobody could have it? (Is it even fair to say that having this material in society will lead to a greater prevalence of rapists, sexual abusers, and dysfunction?)

I don't really understand what the true meaning and intent was behind this law.

[WanderingKnight]

The only part of your statement that I disagree with is that "it's wrong to harm someone to produce such an image." I'd say that it's wrong to harm someone against their will.

Well, yes, you get my drift; I actually agree with you. S&M fans should have their place, too

[Vexx]

Until I see a metric for "extreme" and "pornographic", there is no way this bill is "well written". items 3-6 that purport to explain a metric are completely subjective in themselves. The bill is a "feel-good" piece of circle-jerk.

And no, lawyers do not necessarily KNOW what they are talking about. And they sometimes have agendas that have nothing to do with the surface issues (like getting voted back into office by the average moron again).

[Synria_]

Ok I just read the first post and here is what you do.

Gather supporters and start a protest against communism. It doesn't make sense to ban such products or the government interfering in what people CAN'T buy. I mean games and movies? Cmon now...

[Seditary]

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

I handily bolded stuff for people.

Think about it. Literal take of the wording means the extreme image doesn't even have to show anything to make it extreme, it just has to appear to be showing it.

Let alone the implied social engineering from directing this bill at consumers instead of producers.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Sokar

I can't believe so many people still misunderstand this bill. This is a perfectly well written bill. The people who write this bills are typically lawyers, so they know what they are talking about. The most common profession for a House or Senate member in America is lawyer, I would assume it's the same for U.K. legislature. Let's parse this bill together shall we.

Been a bit of a while to reply to this. I was initially impressed by your reply, but after thinking over the law a bit I need to agree with Slice of Life on this one, it's horribly written and it makes the intent of the bill very difficult to discern - unless you want to get into conspiracy theories. I mean, can you tell me what this bill is supposed to accomplish? When I initially read it over I figured that it was to protect people involved in these films from violence. But then this part comes up:

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

Pay particular attention to part D there, which basically states that the image only has to appear to be real - in other words, nothing real had to have taken place! This was Seditary's point, but now look at C, B, and A - you realize that they're not only banning the real thing, but things that appear to be any of that. What's the purpose of this bill, again? And who, exactly, determines the appearence of these things? I think that has an extremely wide interpretation. Perfect for snagging people and trying them in court, but pretty crappy for anything else. Is this the first step toward an attempted ban on pornography?

This law is an injustice to the people under it.

[Ending]

Then ban sex, too. Because it's explicit. We'll use cloning instead.

That's probably what the feminist organizations are lobbying for. One day, when there are enough female parlament members, the necessary laws are going to pass.

Seriously, though, I don't believe it has much impact. Reality is one thing and theory another. Sure, they can say that "you shouldn't do this", but how are you going to enforce and oversee the execution of the law? And will it be worth it?

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Wordplay

That's probably what the feminist organizations are lobbying for. One day, when there are enough female parlament members, the necessary laws are going to pass.

*yawn*

Protip: In general, women, feminists even, tend to enjoy sex a lot as long as it is performed by the right person(s) with a minimum of skill. Maybe they don't boast about it so much because men tend to have a problem with that (see also: easy, slut, whore etc.).

And up to now the people in power on this planet were mostly men, and quite eager to condemn and outlaw sexual acts and pornography they didn't fancy.