What Satellite: Satellite X columns 2009

January

Dangerous Pictures...

From What Satellite

A new law came into force on 26th January 2009 that may be of concern to readers of this column.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 has created the new offence of possessing 'extreme pornographic images', or "dangerous pictures" as campaigners have dubbed them.

Such images can be photos, films on DVD, recordings off satellite TV or videos on a computer hard drive. The new law is not intended to outlaw either horror films or non violent sex films, but the grey area where the two genres meet, could well fall foul of the law.

So what does the law say?

There are three elements to the offence. An image must come within the terms of all three elements before it will fall foul of the offence.

Those elements are:

1. That the image is pornographic
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character
3. That the image portrays in an explicit and realistic way, one of the following extreme acts:

a. An act which threatens a person�s life
b. An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person�s anus, breast or genitals;
c. An act involving sexual interference with a human corpse,
d. A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

The Act defines a pornographic image as one produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. Whether this threshold has been met will be an issue for the magistrate or jury to determine simply by looking at the image.

The second element about the image being of an obscene character is also very much up to the magistrate or jury. It is therefore impossible for people to accurately predict. Some jurors may find very little adult consensual material to be obscene whereas some seem to think that all adult material is obscene.

Perhaps the 3rd element is what causes concern to most people. Images of real and serious violence would be universally condemned by everyone but the law says 'realistic' rather than 'real'. Special effects artists pride themselves on being as 'realistic' as absolutely possible, but any violence so depicted is certainly not 'real'.

One dangerous scenario is a sexy horror, say a film with vampires having a hardcore romp with their victims before the inevitable bloody bite. Surely such a scene is intended to be arousing. Surely there are some potential jurors who will find it 'disgusting' And surely the special effects team have done their best to make it look 'realistic'. The fact that the victim dies in the movie rather suggests that the act depicted was 'life threatening'. It therefore satisfies the criteraa amd is therefore a potentially dangerous picture.

Another worrying scenario is based on a pedantic reading of the law. What about a normal everyday condomless sex scene in a hardcore film? It is both pornographic and explicit by definition. Again some jurors will find it disgusting and in a world with HIV and AIDS, unprotected sex is indeed life threatening. Suddenly the majority of all porn could be defined as dangerous.

However there are defences in the law which may come to the assistance of those caught with a dangerous picture:

That the person was in possession of an extreme image but had not looked at it and therefore neither knew, nor had reason to suspect that it was an extreme pornographic image.

That the person had been sent the image without having asked for it.

The offence is not targeted at those who accidentally stumble across extreme pornographic images while surfing the Net. Assuming they delete any accidental images in a timely manner.

Films certified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) are exempted.

Also the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is needed before a case can be taken to court.

Even deleting dangerous pictures on a computer has an element of complexity. Hitting the delete key does not totally delete the image. Case law suggests that deleting images held on a computer is sufficient to get rid of them. An exception would be where a person is shown to have intended to remain in control of an image even though he has nominally deleted it. This will entail him having the capacity (through skill or software) to retrieve the image.

So for most computer users, they would be expected to empty the recycle bin after deleting the image. It would be interesting to see how this rule applies to people with computer forensics ability. It would be almost impossible for them to delete images without physically destroying their disk drive.

Hopefully this provides sufficient information for people to form an opinion on whether any of their images are dangerous and so can act accordingly. Unfortunately it does not provide enough information to know for sure.

And if that wasn't enough, the Government are now busy debating legislation for a new set of dangerous pictures. Non photographic pornographic pictures featuring under 18s. This must be very worrying for viewers of Japanese anime such as Hentai. The stylised characters tend to be vaguely young looking without sufficient detail to be very sure exactly what age they are meant to be.

Dangerous Indeed!

(Further government information on the new offence of Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images is available at www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf)

January		Dangerous Pictures...


	From What Satellite
	A new law came into force on 26th January 2009 that may be of concern to readers of this column. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 has created the new offence of possessing 'extreme pornographic images', or "dangerous pictures" as campaigners have dubbed them. Such images can be photos, films on DVD, recordings off satellite TV or videos on a computer hard drive. The new law is not intended to outlaw either horror films or non violent sex films, but the grey area where the two genres meet, could well fall foul of the law. So what does the law say? There are three elements to the offence. An image must come within the terms of all three elements before it will fall foul of the offence. Those elements are: 1. That the image is pornographic 2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character 3. That the image portrays in an explicit and realistic way, one of the following extreme acts: a. An act which threatens a person�s life b. An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person�s anus, breast or genitals; c. An act involving sexual interference with a human corpse, d. A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), The Act defines a pornographic image as one produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. Whether this threshold has been met will be an issue for the magistrate or jury to determine simply by looking at the image. The second element about the image being of an obscene character is also very much up to the magistrate or jury. It is therefore impossible for people to accurately predict. Some jurors may find very little adult consensual material to be obscene whereas some seem to think that all adult material is obscene. Perhaps the 3rd element is what causes concern to most people. Images of real and serious violence would be universally condemned by everyone but the law says 'realistic' rather than 'real'. Special effects artists pride themselves on being as 'realistic' as absolutely possible, but any violence so depicted is certainly not 'real'. One dangerous scenario is a sexy horror, say a film with vampires having a hardcore romp with their victims before the inevitable bloody bite. Surely such a scene is intended to be arousing. Surely there are some potential jurors who will find it 'disgusting' And surely the special effects team have done their best to make it look 'realistic'. The fact that the victim dies in the movie rather suggests that the act depicted was 'life threatening'. It therefore satisfies the criteraa amd is therefore a potentially dangerous picture. Another worrying scenario is based on a pedantic reading of the law. What about a normal everyday condomless sex scene in a hardcore film? It is both pornographic and explicit by definition. Again some jurors will find it disgusting and in a world with HIV and AIDS, unprotected sex is indeed life threatening. Suddenly the majority of all porn could be defined as dangerous. However there are defences in the law which may come to the assistance of those caught with a dangerous picture: That the person was in possession of an extreme image but had not looked at it and therefore neither knew, nor had reason to suspect that it was an extreme pornographic image. That the person had been sent the image without having asked for it. The offence is not targeted at those who accidentally stumble across extreme pornographic images while surfing the Net. Assuming they delete any accidental images in a timely manner. Films certified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) are exempted. Also the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is needed before a case can be taken to court. Even deleting dangerous pictures on a computer has an element of complexity. Hitting the delete key does not totally delete the image. Case law suggests that deleting images held on a computer is sufficient to get rid of them. An exception would be where a person is shown to have intended to remain in control of an image even though he has nominally deleted it. This will entail him having the capacity (through skill or software) to retrieve the image. So for most computer users, they would be expected to empty the recycle bin after deleting the image. It would be interesting to see how this rule applies to people with computer forensics ability. It would be almost impossible for them to delete images without physically destroying their disk drive. Hopefully this provides sufficient information for people to form an opinion on whether any of their images are dangerous and so can act accordingly. Unfortunately it does not provide enough information to know for sure. And if that wasn't enough, the Government are now busy debating legislation for a new set of dangerous pictures. Non photographic pornographic pictures featuring under 18s. This must be very worrying for viewers of Japanese anime such as Hentai. The stylised characters tend to be vaguely young looking without sufficient detail to be very sure exactly what age they are meant to be. Dangerous Indeed! (Further government information on the new offence of Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images is available at www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf)