This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
B1585 - Obscenity Bill 2019, Rt. Hon DayneD89
Image
Obscenity Bill 2019

An Act to turn back prudish laws on pornography produced with the consent of all parties.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Obscene Publications
(1) The Obscene Publications Act 1959 is repealed; and
(2) The Obscene Publications Act 1964 is repealed.

2. Pornography
(1) Sections 63 to 66 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 are repealed; and
(2) Section 268E of the Communications Act 2003 is repealed.

3: Commencement, Short Title and Extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Obscenity Act 2020; and
(2) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
(3) Shall come into force on royal assent.

NotesMr Speaker, As society has progressed, our obscenity legislation has quickly become outdated. While these pieces of legislation were flawed and criticized from the beginning, the years have not been good to them and they are in urgent need of repeal to keep up with modern Britain. This bill seeks to remove some poor historic law on the subject, as well as to turn back laws that only shame people who engage in or enjoy kink pornography.

1) These laws together make it an offense to publishing obscene material, however, from the start, it was poor legislation. while it aimed to deal with pornography, it's "deprave and corrupt" test means that to fall under this act is not down to whether or not a jury or judge view it as obscene, but rather whether a third party who is likely to have seen the material would have viewed it as obscene. Of course material being obscene is subjective, making this an even weaker law when viewed with contemporary eyes.

I can find very few cases of prosecution under this Act due to the problems I have mentioned, and at least going back as far as 1976 I have not found a successful prosecution.

2) (a) This would legalize 'extreme pornography'. Under these sections, extreme pornography includes many forms of bondage (for example non-consensual acts, even when these are fictional). Note that this would not extend legalization to pornographic images containing children and other sexual offenses would still exist.
(b) This section requires on-demand online porn adheres to the same guidelines laid out for DVD sex shop-type porn by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC). This includes, but is not limited to, banning: Spanking, Physical restraint, Female-ejaculation, Fisting, and Facesitting.
0
BigBootyPeaches
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
Aye a sensible law. However I must ask that why I can currently watching pornography with fisting and female squirting in it already?

It is archaic to have these categories banned for no proper reason.
0
Vapordave
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
Aye. The regulations don't make sense and are archaic.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by BigBootyPeaches)
Aye a sensible law. However I must ask that why I can currently watching pornography with fisting and female squirting in it already?

It is archaic to have these categories banned for no proper reason.
Because they're unenforced laws
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
Aye! The government shouldn't control what we can watch.

Revision: having read all the clauses I've changed my mind. Some of the things in there I want to keep. E.g. rape porn, dead human porn, animal porn. Porn depicting self harm and gore I can support removing restrictions.
Last edited by Miss Maddie; 4 months ago
0
KingPenguin
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
I would vote aye for this. There is very little reason for the aforementioned porn categories to be banned. Only those who are prudish and lack sexual activity themselves would be against it.
0
BigBootyPeaches
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Because they're unenforced laws
In that case that makes them even more pointless.

Vote aye for this piece of legislation!
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
I don't imagine this will meet much opposition.
0
MilitantMagpie
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I don't imagine this will meet much opposition.
So it shouldn't. Apart from the illogical reason that bondage porn may encourage people to rape (stupid notion) there aren't many even semi-sensible reasons for not allowing these types of pornographic films.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by MilitantMagpie)
So it shouldn't. Apart from the illogical reason that bondage porn may encourage people to rape (stupid notion) there aren't many even semi-sensible reasons for not allowing these types of pornographic films.
I completely agree
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 months ago
#11
I see no issues, Aye.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 months ago
#12
The Communications Act link goes to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, and there is no 268E of the Communications Act 2003. For the rest of this post, I'll refer to acts by their year.

From my reading of the 2008 Act, it bans
  • gore-filled porn
  • cannibalistic porn
  • rape porn
  • necrophilic porn
  • porn that results in death
  • zoophilic porn
I recognise that rape fantasy is a real thing, but everything else here is definitely illegal. Why should possessing images is illegal acts be legal?

For the 1959 and 1964 Acts, I'm less sure about them.

As I said, the repeal of the 2003 act doesn't make sense so no comment.
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
There's some positive stuff in this but I really take issue with this:
This would legalize 'extreme pornography'. Under these sections, extreme pornography includes many forms of bondage (for example non-consensual acts, even when these are fictional).
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 months ago
#14
Happy to repeal the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (as amended by the 1964 Act), but not the sections of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

As Aph says, section 268E of the Communications Act 2003 does not exist, and your link directs to the wrong thing.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 months ago
#15
Nay! This bill is repealing this section from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

''(7)An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a)an act which threatens a person's life,
(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c)an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.


(7A)An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following—
(a)an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or
(b)an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else,and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.''


So this bill legalises necrophilia porn, zoophilia porn, gore filled porn and rape porn. If we are to legalise these things why not go one step further and legalise child porn while you're at it?

If it weren't repealing those sections I could support this bill.
1
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
(Original post by Mr T 999)
Nay! This bill is repealing this section from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

''(7)An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a)an act which threatens a person's life,
(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c)an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.


(7A)An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following—
(a)an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or
(b)an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else,and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.''


So this bill legalises necrophilia porn, zoophilia porn, gore filled porn and rape porn. If we are to legalise these things why not go one step further and legalise child porn while you're at it?

If it weren't repealing those sections I could support this bill.
Well then, probably should have looked into it more, I'll revoke my previous statement :lol:
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 months ago
#17
Also, just a small thing, why is this bill the Obscenity Bill 2019?
Last edited by The Mogg; 4 months ago
1
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 months ago
#18
I don’t think there is much point in the government trying to regulate most porn so I support the intent behind this, but I’m unhappy with section 63 (7) (c) and (d) being repealed because sex with corpses is grossly disrespectful to say the least and bestiality is animal abuse, and neither of those can realistically be faked for filming purposes. I’m also not happy with the repeal of subsection 7A - in my opinion this risks allowing wider dissemination of porn which depicts actual rape or sexual assault taking place, which is obviously hugely traumatic for the survivor. On that basis, right now it’s a no.

(it should also be section 368E of the Communications Act being repealed - 268E doesn’t exist)
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 months ago
#19
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
(it should also be section 368E of the Communications Act being repealed - 268E doesn’t exist)
This makes much more sense, though I don't see a good reason to repeal it. The better change would seem to be to change the BBFC guidelines, but I'm not sure how those guidelines are set in all honesty.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 months ago
#20
I support my Rt Hon colleagues concerns over parts of this bill, but can support the principle and most of what it does.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (181)
14.21%
I'm not sure (59)
4.63%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (375)
29.43%
I have already dropped out (37)
2.9%
I'm not a current university student (622)
48.82%

Watched Threads

View All