Monday, 30 July 2012

The long fist of the law

An interesting case has come to court today:
Today the Crown Prosecution Service will attempt to persuade a jury that images of fisting should be classified as “extreme pornography” with the risk to the defendant of three years in custody, inclusion on the sex offenders' register and damage to his personal and professional standing.
Simon Walsh, has been charged with being in possession of extreme pornographic images under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: so the Prosecution must prove that the act of fisting is “likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus”.
More information on the case can be found at the ObscenityLawyer blog and on his Twitter feed.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that:
(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(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.
It's a bloody awful law that came about after the murder of Jane Longhurst.  Because it is so subjective, it has to be tested in the courts to set precedents for future cases. This has led to ridiculous cases like the chap who was up before a judge for possessing a clip of someone having sex with a tiger. It was hastily dropped after it was discovered to be a very obvious fake.

Fisting, which I suspect is a minority pursuit, is a completely legal act and therefore seems odd that it would be criminal to possess an image or film of an act of it. I also suspect that injury is unlikely to occur simply because those who partake in it will have worked themselves up to it over time - you cannot simply just stick a hand up an arse. If there is a conviction for this, what then of other large insertions on film? When is a dildo too big? What about the "larger" gentleman performing or those stretchy ladies who can accommodate more than one man in the same place at the same time? Just these examples show what a nonsense that trying to get a conviction on images of fisting is. I can only wish Mr. Walsh and his legal team the best of luck with this and hope that the case is thrown out.

No comments:

Post a Comment