|
JulianM_Paper-II 8 - 14 Jan 2015 - Main.IanSullivan
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper2013" |
|---|
| | | Extreme Porn
Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered by Graham Coutts, a fan of websites such as "Club Dead" and "Rape Action" which offered images of women being abused and violated. After he was finally jailed for life, her mother Liz began a campaign to ban the possession of such images in the UK. Last week, she succeeded. |
|
|
JulianM_Paper-II 7 - 16 May 2008 - Main.JulianM
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Extreme Porn | |
<
< | The extreme porn provisions of the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act in the UK, are overly broad, socially regressive, and typical of the kneejerk reaction one can expect in the wake of an unfortunate tragedy. | >
> | Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered by Graham Coutts, a fan of websites such as "Club Dead" and "Rape Action" which offered images of women being abused and violated. After he was finally jailed for life, her mother Liz began a campaign to ban the possession of such images in the UK. Last week, she succeeded. | | | | |
<
< | * DISCLAIMER * Please note, this is a work in progress, and not intended for review (just yet). I'm just experimenting with the editor, and using this to collect links/extracts which might be helpful. I'll remove this notice as soon as it is complete! | | | | |
<
< | Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered by Graham Coutts, a fan of websites such as "Club Dead" and "Rape Action"; which offered images of women being abused and violated. After he was finally jailed for life, her mother Liz began a campaign to ban the possession of such images in the UK. Last week, she succeeded. | >
> | The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, provides that is an offense for a person to be in possession of an "extreme pornographic image" which "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)." A "reasonable person looking at the image [must] think that any such person or animal was real" and the image must have been produced "principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." Limited defenses exist if the accused can prove they were unaware of the fact of their possession, had a legitimate reason for same, or were sent the material without prior request and did not keep it for an unreasonable time. Finally, there is a limited defense if the accused can prove that they participated in the act portrayed, and that no non-consensual harm actually occurred. | | | | |
<
< | The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, provides that is an offence for a person to be in possession of an “extreme pornographic image” which “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).” A “reasonable person looking at the image [must] think that any such person or animal was real” and the image must have been produced “principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Limited defenses exist if the accused can prove they were unaware of the fact of their possession, had a legitimate reason for same, or were sent the material without prior request and did not keep it for an unreasonable time. Finally, there is a limited defense if the accused can prove that they participated in the act portrayed, and that no non-consensual harm actually occurred. | >
> | These provisions have been justified on several grounds. First, as helping protect children from inadvertent exposure to violent pornography. More vocal advocates also use this to shoehorn in the rationales traditionally associated with a ban on child pornography. Second, to protect the participants involved in its manufacture. Third, as a means of breaking the supply/demand cycle, thereby discourage interest in the material. Fourth, for the moral message such "gestural legislation" sends to the public. For some, this is simply that such practices have no place in our society, for others, this is "the eroticisation of hate" and a symbol of "male domination and exploitation of women and children." Finally, we are told that the advent of the Internet has made this a necessity. In light of how much of this content is hosted outside the UK, The Obscene Publication Act of 1959 which prohibits the distribution of such material, is now as effective as a "chocolate fireguard," and only a crime of possession will address the problem. | | | | |
<
< | These provisions have been justified on several grounds. First, as helping protect children from inadvertent exposure to violent pornography. More vocal advocates also
use this to shoehorn in the rationales more traditionally associated with a ban on child pornography. Second, to protect the participants involved in its manufacture. Third, as a means of breaking the supply/demand cycle, thereby discourage public interest in the material. Fourth, for the moral message such “gestural legislation” sends to the public. For some, this is simply that such practices have no place in our society, for others, this is “the eroticisation of hate” and a symbol of “male domination and exploitation of women and children.” Finally, we are told that the advent of the Internet has made this a necessity. In light of how much of this content is hosted outside the UK, The Obscene Publication Act of 1959 which prohibits the distribution of such material is now as effective as “chocolate fireguard,” and only a crime of possession will address the perceived problem.
However, in reality these are overly broad provisions which criminalize the fixation of what in certain circumstances is otherwise lawful activity, are socially regressive, and potentially violate several fundamental human rights.
First,
These provisions were hurried through legislative scrutiny of Parliament, as part of a much larger bill, which in part because the much larger bill of which they were a part, one element of which was a renewal of the ban on prison officers striking, which the government urgently wished to see enacted in light of an earlier walkout. | >
> | However, in reality these are overly broad, socially regressive, and potentially violate the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 8 (the right to respect for private life), and Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression). To be compatible with these basic tenets, any law must be sufficiently clear and precise, capable of meeting the objective pursued, and necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. These are not. | | | | |
>
> | First, as Lord Wallace of Tankerness put in the House of Lords: "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence." What exactly constitutes "grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character," and as a matter of statutory construction, why include so many terms? What are the mens rea requirements for a defense? What happens, for instance, if the accused requested the image, but was unaware that it was extreme? The use of an objective standard means leaves these determinations to the police, although at least the DPP's permission is required for a prosecution. | | | | |
>
> | Secondly, what exactly is the objective of these provisions? The case for a new law would be greatly strengthened if there were any nexus between possession of this material, and violent crime. However, the governments own consultation accepted that there was zero evidence to support this. If anything experience would suggest the contrary. The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years, while access to pornography has concomitantly become much more freely available. Similarly, if the justification is to protect innocent viewers, then parental supervision and client based content filters provide a more effective, and more targeted means of control. Children have nothing to do with this; the specter of child pornography, already rightly outlawed, is invoked merely as a rhetorical ploy to obscure the bogus rationales. If to protect the participants, then the act not only overreaches, but is redundant given that the most severe acts of BDSM themselves are already illegal. If the concern is the increased availability of these images as a result of the Internet, then why does the Act also extend to traditional media? | | | | |
<
< | • CONS
o Strict Liability
Burden of Proof
• Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer - who is responsible under the OPA - to the consumer. THIS IS SURELY A *HUGE DEAL*
Stiff penalty
• 2-3 years jail time, for a strict liability offence.
• BDSM activists claim this criminalize the fixation of acts which themselves are lawful, and is reminiscent of the derogatory attitude
o Lord Wallace of Tankerness during last week's debate in the House of Lords: "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence,"
o With that partly in mind, the government is tabling an amendment that would allow couples to keep pictures of themselves engaged in consensual acts - but not to distribute them
Mainstream examples
• Must be produced principal for the purpose of sexual arousal, which can be found if you cut out clips:
o rape scene in Sleeping With The Enemy and
o the scene in The Long Kiss Goodnight where woman is tied to a waterwheel
• ECHR - The criminalization of the possession raises may also violate the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 8 (the right to respect for private life), and Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression). To be compatible, the law must be sufficiently clear and precise, be necessary and proportionate, and capable of meeting the objective pursued
o Clarity
MR requirements, what’s the situation if you request the image, but didn’t know it was going to be extreme?
Definition is too vague
• Why “grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character”?
o Necessary / Proportionate
In no other Western country is the simple possession of such pornography a criminal offence. Onus of proof on defendant may have been more appropriate pre-internet, very difficult with pop-ups, attachments, and caches – your word against DPP, is bound to lead to miscarriages. Onus should be on DPP, not hard to show, will usually be a “trail of crumbs” of previous sites / thumbnails
• Reverse burdens of proof CAN be compatible with Art 6 of the Human Rights Act (right to a fair trial); but how do you prove that you didn’t see material, or didn’t request it?
o Meets objective
Case for a new law banning this would be greatly strengthened if there were any nexus between possession of this material, and violent crime. However, the original consultation accepted that there no evidence to support this.
• Zero evidence that violent porn begets social violence
o In June 2006, Anthony D'amato found the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85 pct in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence. [backlash]
NOTE: of this could be explained by anything which is half the problem with all these studies
What is the justification then?
• Protecting innocent viewers?
o (many more effective means)
• protecting the participants?
o (then this act greatly overreaches)
Why extend the act to traditional media if the Internet is the problem?
Ineffectual
• What harm is this really trying to prevent?
o Efficacy, this is hardly going to stop weirdo’s
No evidence to show that normal people viewing violent porn, are not going to commit violent acts
Not kiddie porn – covers consulting adults, what have children got to do with it? Nothing, just a rhetorical ploy to obscure logic.
o Retarded that the underlying acts are legal
o Enforcement: "Perhaps the most chilling point in the Minister’s summing up - I thank him for going into some detail - was that when it came to policing this it was for dealing 'with individuals' who are 'causing concern'.
o
• Conclusion
o Gesture? Sending a message? Shouldn’t denigrate the existing corpus with this nonsense | >
> | Thirdly, these can hardly be said to be necessary and proportionate measures. In no other western country, is the simple possession of such pornography a criminal offense. Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer to the consumer, under a strict liability regime, the punishment for which is two to three years "at Her Majesty's pleasure." Although in some cases, such reversal of the burden of proof may be compatible with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act (the right to a fair trial), it depends on difficulty of discharging that burden. Now, with pop-ups, attachments, and multiple caches, how is the accused to prove that they didn't see the material, or didn't request it? Placing the words of an accused 'deviant' against those of the DPP, who would have a much easier task of showing—usually through a "trail of crumbs" in the browser history from previous sites and thumbnails—is bound to lead to miscarriages of justice. | | | | |
>
> | Finally, these provisions were rushed through Parliament, as part of a much larger bill, the timetable for which was driven by a perceived urgency to renew the ban on prison officers striking. They are likely to be completely ineffectual, will achieve little other than a waste of tax payers in lengthy appeals to the courts in Strasbourg, and are open to prosecutorial abuse. As Baroness Miller put it: "Perhaps the most chilling point in the Minister's summing up . . . was that when it came to policing this it was for dealing 'with individuals' who are 'causing concern'." Marvelous. | | | | |
>
> | Word Count: 988 (ex Abstract/References) | | | Further Reading | |
>
> | The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 | | | | |
<
< | Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography, and the Government’s Response | >
> | Legislative History of the Act
Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography, and the Government's Response
Hansard Online - Official Reports of Debates in the UK Parliament
Director of Public Prosecutions
European Convention on Human Rights
The Obscene Publications Act 1959
The Human Rights Act 1998 | | | | |
<
< | "I’m not doing anything wrong," BBC News Magazine, Apr. 29 2008 | | | | |
<
< | Edward Gorman, Crown Prince of Bahrain bars Max Mosley over 'Nazi Prostitute' Claim, Apr. 3 2008 | | | Liberty Response to the Home Office Consultation Paper on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material | | | Liberty's Committee Stage Briefing on the Bill in the House of Commons, Oct 2007 | |
<
< | Rabinder Singh QC’s Opinion on Legality of Home Office Proposals | >
> | Rabinder Singh QC's Opinion on Legality of Home Office Proposals | | | | |
<
< | Prisoner officers strikes
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 | >
> | EFF – Why the ACLU Opposes Censorship of Pornography | | | | |
<
< | Legislative History of the Act | >
> | Anthony D'Amato, Porn Up, Rape Down, Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 913013, June 23 2006 | | | | |
<
< | Chris Summers, When Does Kinky Porn Become Illegal?, BBC News, Apr. 28 2008 | | | Backlash – Uphold the Human Rights Act (Opposition Group) | |
<
< | Hansard Online – Official Reports of Debates in the UK Parliament | | | | |
<
< | EFF – Why the ACLU Opposes Censorship of Pornography | | | | |
<
< | The Register – Lords Linger Over Extreme Porn Definition, May 5 2008 | >
> | R v. Brown (1994) 1 A.C. 212 (House of Lords holds 3:2 that consent was no defence to a charge of occasioning actual bodily harm) | | | | |
<
< | Tania Branigan, The Guardian, Violent Porn Ban a ‘Memorial To My Daughter’, Aug. 31 2006 | | | | |
<
< | R v. Brown (1994) 1 A.C. 212 (House of Lords holds 3:2 that consent was no defence to a charge of occasioning actual bodily harm) | >
> | Andrew Norfolk, Jane Austen and the Case for Extreme Porn, The Times Online, Mar 17, 2007
Tania Branigan, The Guardian, Violent Porn Ban a 'Memorial To My Daughter', Aug. 31 2006
The Register – Lords Linger Over Extreme Porn Definition, May 5 2008 | | | Out-law.com, New Law Will Criminalise Possession of Extreme Porn, Feb. 7 2007) | |
>
> | Ministers Seek Prison Strike Ban, BBC News, Jan. 7 2008
"I'm not doing anything wrong," BBC News Magazine, Apr. 29 2008
Chris Summers, When Does Kinky Porn Become Illegal?, BBC News, Apr. 28 2008 | | | Chris Summers, Extreme Porn Proposals Spark Row, BBC News, July 4 2007 | |
>
> | Edward Gorman, Crown Prince of Bahrain bars Max Mosley over 'Nazi Prostitute' Claim, Apr. 3 2008 |
|
|
JulianM_Paper-II 6 - 16 May 2008 - Main.JulianM
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Extreme Porn | | | Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered by Graham Coutts, a fan of websites such as "Club Dead" and "Rape Action"; which offered images of women being abused and violated. After he was finally jailed for life, her mother Liz began a campaign to ban the possession of such images in the UK. Last week, she succeeded. | |
>
> | The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, provides that is an offence for a person to be in possession of an “extreme pornographic image” which “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).” A “reasonable person looking at the image [must] think that any such person or animal was real” and the image must have been produced “principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Limited defenses exist if the accused can prove they were unaware of the fact of their possession, had a legitimate reason for same, or were sent the material without prior request and did not keep it for an unreasonable time. Finally, there is a limited defense if the accused can prove that they participated in the act portrayed, and that no non-consensual harm actually occurred.
These provisions have been justified on several grounds. First, as helping protect children from inadvertent exposure to violent pornography. More vocal advocates also
use this to shoehorn in the rationales more traditionally associated with a ban on child pornography. Second, to protect the participants involved in its manufacture. Third, as a means of breaking the supply/demand cycle, thereby discourage public interest in the material. Fourth, for the moral message such “gestural legislation” sends to the public. For some, this is simply that such practices have no place in our society, for others, this is “the eroticisation of hate” and a symbol of “male domination and exploitation of women and children.” Finally, we are told that the advent of the Internet has made this a necessity. In light of how much of this content is hosted outside the UK, The Obscene Publication Act of 1959 which prohibits the distribution of such material is now as effective as “chocolate fireguard,” and only a crime of possession will address the perceived problem.
However, in reality these are overly broad provisions which criminalize the fixation of what in certain circumstances is otherwise lawful activity, are socially regressive, and potentially violate several fundamental human rights.
First,
These provisions were hurried through legislative scrutiny of Parliament, as part of a much larger bill, which in part because the much larger bill of which they were a part, one element of which was a renewal of the ban on prison officers striking, which the government urgently wished to see enacted in light of an earlier walkout.
• CONS
o Strict Liability
Burden of Proof
• Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer - who is responsible under the OPA - to the consumer. THIS IS SURELY A *HUGE DEAL*
Stiff penalty
• 2-3 years jail time, for a strict liability offence.
• BDSM activists claim this criminalize the fixation of acts which themselves are lawful, and is reminiscent of the derogatory attitude
o Lord Wallace of Tankerness during last week's debate in the House of Lords: "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence,"
o With that partly in mind, the government is tabling an amendment that would allow couples to keep pictures of themselves engaged in consensual acts - but not to distribute them
Mainstream examples
• Must be produced principal for the purpose of sexual arousal, which can be found if you cut out clips:
o rape scene in Sleeping With The Enemy and
o the scene in The Long Kiss Goodnight where woman is tied to a waterwheel
• ECHR - The criminalization of the possession raises may also violate the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 8 (the right to respect for private life), and Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression). To be compatible, the law must be sufficiently clear and precise, be necessary and proportionate, and capable of meeting the objective pursued
o Clarity
MR requirements, what’s the situation if you request the image, but didn’t know it was going to be extreme?
Definition is too vague
• Why “grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character”?
o Necessary / Proportionate
In no other Western country is the simple possession of such pornography a criminal offence. Onus of proof on defendant may have been more appropriate pre-internet, very difficult with pop-ups, attachments, and caches – your word against DPP, is bound to lead to miscarriages. Onus should be on DPP, not hard to show, will usually be a “trail of crumbs” of previous sites / thumbnails
• Reverse burdens of proof CAN be compatible with Art 6 of the Human Rights Act (right to a fair trial); but how do you prove that you didn’t see material, or didn’t request it?
o Meets objective
Case for a new law banning this would be greatly strengthened if there were any nexus between possession of this material, and violent crime. However, the original consultation accepted that there no evidence to support this.
• Zero evidence that violent porn begets social violence
o In June 2006, Anthony D'amato found the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85 pct in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence. [backlash]
NOTE: of this could be explained by anything which is half the problem with all these studies
What is the justification then?
• Protecting innocent viewers?
o (many more effective means)
• protecting the participants?
o (then this act greatly overreaches)
Why extend the act to traditional media if the Internet is the problem?
Ineffectual
• What harm is this really trying to prevent?
o Efficacy, this is hardly going to stop weirdo’s
No evidence to show that normal people viewing violent porn, are not going to commit violent acts
Not kiddie porn – covers consulting adults, what have children got to do with it? Nothing, just a rhetorical ploy to obscure logic.
o Retarded that the underlying acts are legal
o Enforcement: "Perhaps the most chilling point in the Minister’s summing up - I thank him for going into some detail - was that when it came to policing this it was for dealing 'with individuals' who are 'causing concern'.
o
• Conclusion
o Gesture? Sending a message? Shouldn’t denigrate the existing corpus with this nonsense | | | |
|
|
JulianM_Paper-II 5 - 16 May 2008 - Main.JulianM
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Extreme Porn | |
<
< | The extreme porn provisions of the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act in the UK, are overly broad, regressive, and the typical of any knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate tragedy. | >
> | The extreme porn provisions of the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act in the UK, are overly broad, socially regressive, and typical of the kneejerk reaction one can expect in the wake of an unfortunate tragedy. | | | * DISCLAIMER * Please note, this is a work in progress, and not intended for review (just yet). I'm just experimenting with the editor, and using this to collect links/extracts which might be helpful. I'll remove this notice as soon as it is complete! | |
<
< | The Criminal Just and Immigration Act 2008 | >
> | Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered by Graham Coutts, a fan of websites such as "Club Dead" and "Rape Action"; which offered images of women being abused and violated. After he was finally jailed for life, her mother Liz began a campaign to ban the possession of such images in the UK. Last week, she succeeded. | | | | |
<
< | Pros | | | | |
<
< | Cons | | | | |
<
< | Conclusions | | | Further Reading | | | Liberty Response to the Home Office Consultation Paper on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material | |
>
> | Liberty's Second Reading Brief on the Bill in the House of Lords, Jan 2008
Liberty's Committee Stage Briefing on the Bill in the House of Commons, Oct 2007
Rabinder Singh QC’s Opinion on Legality of Home Office Proposals | | | Prisoner officers strikes
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 |
|
|
JulianM_Paper-II 3 - 16 May 2008 - Main.JulianM
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Extreme Porn | | | Further Reading | |
>
> | Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography, and the Government’s Response
"I’m not doing anything wrong," BBC News Magazine, Apr. 29 2008
Edward Gorman, Crown Prince of Bahrain bars Max Mosley over 'Nazi Prostitute' Claim, Apr. 3 2008
Liberty Response to the Home Office Consultation Paper on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material
Prisoner officers strikes
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Legislative History of the Act | | | Chris Summers, When Does Kinky Porn Become Illegal?, BBC News, Apr. 28 2008
Backlash – Uphold the Human Rights Act (Opposition Group) | | | Out-law.com, New Law Will Criminalise Possession of Extreme Porn, Feb. 7 2007) | |
<
< | The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 | | | Chris Summers, Extreme Porn Proposals Spark Row, BBC News, July 4 2007 |
|
|
JulianM_Paper-II 2 - 15 May 2008 - Main.JulianM
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Extreme Porn | | | | |
>
> | The extreme porn provisions of the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act in the UK, are overly broad, regressive, and the typical of any knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate tragedy. | | | | |
<
< | -- JulianM - 30 Apr 2008 | >
> | * DISCLAIMER * Please note, this is a work in progress, and not intended for review (just yet). I'm just experimenting with the editor, and using this to collect links/extracts which might be helpful. I'll remove this notice as soon as it is complete! | | | | |
>
> | The Criminal Just and Immigration Act 2008 | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Pros | | | | |
<
< | Second Paper | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Cons
Conclusions
Further Reading
Chris Summers, When Does Kinky Porn Become Illegal?, BBC News, Apr. 28 2008
Backlash – Uphold the Human Rights Act (Opposition Group)
Hansard Online – Official Reports of Debates in the UK Parliament
EFF – Why the ACLU Opposes Censorship of Pornography
The Register – Lords Linger Over Extreme Porn Definition, May 5 2008
Tania Branigan, The Guardian, Violent Porn Ban a ‘Memorial To My Daughter’, Aug. 31 2006
R v. Brown (1994) 1 A.C. 212 (House of Lords holds 3:2 that consent was no defence to a charge of occasioning actual bodily harm)
Out-law.com, New Law Will Criminalise Possession of Extreme Porn, Feb. 7 2007)
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Chris Summers, Extreme Porn Proposals Spark Row, BBC News, July 4 2007 |
|
| Revision 8 | r8 - 14 Jan 2015 - 22:44:49 - IanSullivan |
| Revision 7 | r7 - 16 May 2008 - 18:14:35 - JulianM |
| Revision 6 | r6 - 16 May 2008 - 06:19:19 - JulianM |
| Revision 5 | r5 - 16 May 2008 - 05:04:32 - JulianM |
| Revision 4 | r4 - 16 May 2008 - 03:39:23 - JulianM |
| Revision 3 | r3 - 16 May 2008 - 02:34:43 - JulianM |
| Revision 2 | r2 - 15 May 2008 - 19:48:23 - JulianM |
| Revision 1 | r1 - 30 Apr 2008 - 02:31:26 - JulianM |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|