Judicial Review of the ‘extreme images’ Act
A victim of the extreme image law, the ‘Tiger’ defendant Andrew Holland, has initiated steps that should lead to a Judicial Review of S63 of the CJIA 2008. Supporting this initiative, Backlash has written to the Prime Minister. Read Obscenity Lawyer’s explanation.
The Independent explains the impact of being prosecuted here. The Daily Mail and the Mirror also picked up the story early on, followed by several others. Jane Fae Ozimek included much informed context in a Politics.co.uk article and having spoken to Andrew Holland, Margaret Corvid wrote an excellent column for the New Statesman.
Is Your Porn Legal?
Did you know it is illegal to possess ‘extreme pornography’? This includes adult pornography deemed realistic, explicit and depicting at least one of these things:
• an act which threatens a person’s life,
• an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
• an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
• a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).
This includes pretend acts and acts that are both legal and consensual to perform. Police have charged people over images of fisting, urethral sounding and (bizarrely) wearing gasmasks. No alternative sex act is entirely safe.
Backlash has advised countless people and support court cases that keep law-abiding sexual minorities out of prison.
Now the Government wants to ban fictional depictions of rape as well. This is set to include images depicting rough sex and fantasy rape scenarios that are enjoyed safely and consensually by countless people throughout the UK.
What can I do?
• Learn the law and your rights.
• Write to your MP telling them about the damage that porn laws do to ordinary people (and voters)
• Spread the word in newspapers and on the web about how porn bans cause much more harm than porn itself
• Donate what you can to Backlash’s campaign and legal defence fund
• Like us on Facebook and follow us on twitter
Backlash related Victories
#TwinkTrial – A gay man of high professional standing, charged by CPS in November 2012 with possessing indecent images. Case dismissed with help from Backlash after evidence demonstrated images were legal to possess, 1 November 2013.
Walsh (#Porntrial) – former aide to Mayor Boris Johnson and barrister specialising in police misconduct. Prosecuted for possession of fisting images from a private adult sex party, in which he was a participant. Found not guilty by jury in Kingston Crown Court in August 2012.
Peacock (#ObscenityTrial) – sex worker, prosecuted for distributing gay fisting pornography. Found not guilty by jury in Southwark Crown Court in January 2012.
Webster – Charged with possession of images of erotic horror, including contrived death scenes. Backlash developed expert evidence showing that images lacked realism. Acquitted by a jury in Stafford Crown Court in January 2011.
Holland (#tigerporn) – Charged with possession of extreme pornography, including depiction of a woman having sex with a tiger. Case dropped when it was revealed tiger ‘talked’ during the video, proving lack of realism. Case dismissed in Mold Crown Court in January 2010.