Talk:Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|As this page deals with a pornography topic, you may find the guidance of Pornography and No disclaimers in articles helpful in understanding Wikipedia policy before making edits or deletions.|
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
- 1 Petitions
- 2 Why Is Porn tacked onto an Immigration act?
- 3 Warning?
- 4 not NPOV?
- 5 Merge from Necrobabes, Graham Coutts, and Jane Longhurst
- 6 Notability
- 7 Spanner case
- 8 Worldwide view?
- 9 Unintended Consequences
- 10 Is this law passed yet?
- 11 Photo
- 12 the choice of this article name is a bit pov
- 13 Requested move
- 14 Photo
- 15 Perhaps added back with appropriate edits
- 16 Scottish Law
- 17 Article is a mess
- 18 Graham Coutts: proposed renaming
Should online petitions appear in the external links section? I appreciate that two are provided for balance, but their inclusion doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. Ben Whiteside 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why Is Porn tacked onto an Immigration act?
If the makers presumably do not report it as obscene then uploading to the net, then who does? Doesn't police and judges have to look at the material to be offended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Possibly, but a warning at the top, saying this may disturb some people, as it defintaly did me. Just incase someone wanders here, and they read it, and get very "grossed out" or very disturbed. Please do so—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- What did you think an article named Extreme Pornography was going to entail? Prodster (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some people shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.. Just as Prodster says, what do you expect "Extreme pornography" to be? This is Wikipedia, not mums-world, and we try to delivery unbiased facts without compromise for the .. overly stupid .. thats what Simple Wikipedia is for. TigerTails (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know this comment was left ages ago, but just to clarify, the answer is No, and this is not up for discussion, as it's Wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Every page already has a disclaimer by default, which is linked from the bottom ("Disclaimer").
- I fail to understand what's so disturbing by simply talking about the topic (it's not like there are any sexual images here, unlike some Wikipedia articles) - should the Government Act itself, along with all the transcripts on Government debates, as well as everytime Liz Longhurst talks about it, also come with warnings? Mdwh (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The Jane Longhurst Trust is a charitable company which seeks to make the Internet safer and raise awareness of the harmful effects of extreme pornography. I feel that sentence is not really NPOV. Nab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, it implies extreme porn is harmful as a fact. I've removed it for now, and replaced it with text from their "Mission" on their webpage. Is that better? Mdwh 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge from Necrobabes, Graham Coutts, and Jane Longhurst
It was suggested to me that the three articles Necrobabes, Graham Coutts, and Jane Longhurst be merged into this one, and I think it's a good idea, since none is that well referenced or that notable enough on its own. I'm willing to carry out the merge if everyone agrees that it's a good idea. delldot talk 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The murder of Jane Longhurst, and the issue of extreme pornography, are each notable in their own right (e.g., each have been mentioned in multiple national media, without reference to the other). Which parts do you feel are not well referenced? I agree regarding Necrobabes, this is not particularly notable on its own right. Mdwh 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with merging Jane Longhurst and Graham Coutts here. The murder is notable in its own right, as is the topic of "extreme pornography" (the murder would still be notable even if the Government wasn't making these plans), and has a lot of information specific to the murder and trial that is off-topic for this article (I'm not sure if the intent was that all the information on the case be dropped, or included here?) Also I fear there is the risk of undue weight if we end up dedicated a large section of this article to the Longhurst murder.
I think a better idea would be to merge Jane Longhurst and Graham Coutts together into their own article - this is what I've seen done before when you have articles for murderer and victim, with a lot of material repeated between them.
I don't have any strong objections to merging Necrobabes here (or to an article on Jane Longhurst and Graham Coutts) as the site is only notable in this context. However, again we have the problem that there's quite a lot of material in the article - is the intention to trim the information, of have it all in this article? Mdwh 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- About the question of the quite a lot of info, I'd say keep whatever we can reference and get rid of whatever we can't. I don't think it will be too terribly long even if we keep it all. About necrobabes, I'd suggest merging it here rather than to the Coutts article since there was another death having to do with that site. delldot talk 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(from Talk:Necrobabes, history still there)
I was hoping that I'd explained this well enough in the article - it clearly asserts: "the website has achieved notability in the United Kingdom in an attempt to criminalise possession of what the Government has termed extreme pornography."
The website alone originally probably didn't satisfy notability, but it has as a result of recent political debate in the United Kingdom, and has been cited in multiple mainstream media articles (some of which I've linked - I can happily provide more), as well as being mentioned in several debates in the House of Commons (already linked). (Please believe me that my intent here is not to get advertising for some website ;) - my focus is that of this controversy which has sprung up in the UK surrounding the website.)
At the least, I believe this needs to be discussed in an AfD (or here in Talk, first), and is not a suitable candidate for Speedy Delete. Mdwh 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Concur about speedy being incorrect - however, the notability assertion is weak and might not survive an AFD. --Sigma 7 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'll see what people say then. It's a bit of a difficult issue as the notability is not so much the website content directly, but the controversy surrounding it and attempts to ban it (e.g., being the subject of a campaign and Parliamentary debates); accordingly the article focuses on this, rather than the content in general. I don't know if the information would be better off in another existing article, or in an article of a different name. Mdwh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Concur and removed speedy tag. This site easily meets WP:Notability due to the UK government deciding to go after it, as it was discussed in major UK media at that time. Perel 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI ;-): In the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007, the Government cited the Spanner case (Brown  1 AC 212) as justification for criminalising images of consensual acts, as part of its proposed criminalisation of possession of "extreme pornography". ref House of Commons:Criminal Justice And Immigration Bill ref .--Nemissimo (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As stated in the lead, this is an article about the political issue in the UK, so I'm not sure what is being asked for by a worldwide view? I don't know if the editor means non-UK details of "extreme pornography" in general - but that term is not well-defined (and very hard to define - obviously "extreme" is highly POV), and I feel it's better that this article should stick to the issue of the proposed law in the UK. Mdwh (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, though we could look to see if any other countries follow suit. (Hypnosadist) 12:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A straightforward reading of the law implies that unprotected intercourse is "Extreme Pornography", since either participant might have HIV, which would certainly put the life of the other participant at risk. Since HIV tests aren't perfect, even that doesn't eliminate the risk.
- This is unfortunate, because this law is extremely badly thought out. Can anyone clarify whether this will also affect drawn images, cos i think lovers of H anime might be a bit upset about this as well. SirEelBiscuits (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this law passed yet?
Can someone tell me if this is law yet? The article talks in terms of future tense, suggesting that the law hasn't been instigated yet and therefore 'extreme pornography' is not yet illegal in the UK. Can anyone confirm this? If so, has parliament announced WHEN the law will be passed, etc? Thanks J, April 15 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is not yet law - it is currently being debated in the House of Lords. It looks like either the extreme porn clauses will go through as stated, unless there is support for two proposed amendments to either remove the clauses altogether, or to restrict them to images that are both illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act and are of actual sexual offences (see http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=630 for the latest details).
- The Government have stated that they want the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (either with or without the extreme porn clauses) to be law by May 8, suggesting that there won't be the usual "ping-pong" of debates between the two houses, and so it seems this will be decided one way or another in the next couple of weeks. Mdwh (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What kind of photograph is requested? If it's a photograph of "extreme porn" similar to how we have photos for say hardcore pornography, then I think that would be difficult - this article isn't about a pornographic classification (in the sense of softcore, hardcore, etc), it's about a legal classification, and what legally constitutes "extreme" could cover a range of different types and styles of porn, so it would be difficult to find a "representative" image. Also it's unknown what sort of images will come under it until there are any court cases - until then, it's just speculation. Mdwh (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The photo was requested by a persistant vandal/troll who spends his time going around typically adding unnecessary photo requests, wikiproject headers with at best a tenuous link to the subject, and other irrelevant headers. On rare occasions, his judgement is correct, but I usuually revert his changes on sight. Astronaut (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
the choice of this article name is a bit pov
I mean, this isn't the uk wikipedia, this is the wikipedia in english, and it's not about extreme pornography or about terminology in uk law, it's about uk law; so do as a favor and call it law in the uk concerning pornography or something similar because now it's obvious it tries to downplay the fact uk is puritanic in porn. --Leladax (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the term is POV for various reasons. The problem with naming is that there is no established term for the category, other than that covered by the law. OTOH, I disagree that UK specific articles have to have "UK" in the title. How about Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008? This would clearly relate to the UK law, and not cause confusion with a concept of "extreme" pornography in general. This also allows us more flexibility if another country were to use the term, but for a different law.
- The article was started long before the law was passed, so back then there wasn't a law to use in the article name - now that the law is passed, I think it's probably best to do this. Comments? Mdwh (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- No objections, so I will go ahead with Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, for the reasons given above. This is the accurate objective term to use for an article on this law; it avoids POV issues over the term, and confusion over what the scope of the article is about. I also note that in the past, we've had comments/edits from people wondering why this only covers the UK law, or suggesting that this should be covered to "extreme porn" in general, which isn't a good idea in my opinion as there is no objective classification of what the phrase covers, other than as used in this law. The page appears to be protected, so I need to request it. Mdwh (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any chance of someone somehow getting hold of the specific images which this fellow was prosecuted for holding: 
Rationale for inclusion:
1. It would illustrate the exact type of images the law refers to.
2. Wikipedia is not censored
I would have a go but I'm a UK resident so it would make me liable for prosecution myself. Would these images be illegal to be held in Florida?
- The US has no similar law, but animal images might be at risk under their obscenity laws? Note that there are many kind of images covered by this - examples of the "consensual human" cases might be of greater interest. But right now, even textual descriptions of these images are hard to come by. In cases where people have been found guilty, I imagine the police have destroyed any equipment with the images on.
- Also of interest might be the images where this law was used, but where the cases were dropped (to show the broad application of the law) (most notably, the "tiger" cartoon case, and the same guy who was also charged for images involving some kind of genital "mutilation" clip), but even there, I don't know of anyone who has managed to obtain these images. Mdwh (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps added back with appropriate edits
I removed the two following para's from the opening, as in the first sentance (a) and (b) have no context, and in the second sentance "As a specific technical term" also has no context (i.e. I have no idea which or what "specific technical term" is being discussed).
- "Where (a) or (b) apply, the maximum sentence is 3 years; otherwise the maximum is 2 years. Adults sentenced to at least two years will be placed on the Violent and Sex Offender Register."
If this article (and I've seen the dicussion above about naming) is indeed about "Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008" and not the wider context of "extreme porn" (whatever that maybe) then the section on Scotland needs to be moved to a new article. Or the article needs to be renamed to create a winder context. Jasonfward (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- They share enough similarities in the wording of the law, and the history, that it seems reasonable to cover it. I've no objection to someone splitting it off to a new article of course - just that I don't think it's wrong to include it here for now (there's no rule that says Wikipedia articles can't mention anything that doesn't fit exactly and directly under the article title - after all, we mention things like Jane Longhurst and Necrobabes here too, because of their relation to the law, even though they aren't directly part of what the Act says). Mdwh (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Article is a mess
This article cannot make it's mind up, and one hand appears to be a critique on "Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008" and some subsequent prisecutions under that, in other parts it is about "extreme pornography" mentioning various laws and rights in the US in particular.
It's also disorganised in that the various elements of the article are not kept consise and easy to follow the section labeled "Sites labelled as "extreme pornography"" opens "Examples of Internet sites accessed by Graham Coutts..." yet there have been six intervening paragraphs and an entirely new section since Graham Coutts was last mentioned, and as the article is not about Graham Coutts, who Graham Couts is has lost its context.
Whilst I think the article mostly well researched, and on an important area that deserves to be documented here on Wikipedia, the article itself requires a serious overhaul and the article, or perhaps more need to make their minds up about what they are about. i.e. the UK law, all laws in this area, or the whole arena of what may be termed "extreme pornography" of which the laws are somewhat incidental. Jasonfward (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- This article is meant to be about the two recent UK laws (and primarily Section 63). There are no other similar laws, or other usage of "extreme pornography" that I am aware of (other than simply people referring to "extreme" pornography in the dictionary sense of the word, which isn't the sort of thing for an encyclopedia article, I feel).
- Which parts are you referring to that are about "extreme pornography" not in the sense of this law? Note that sites like Necrobabes, despite being in the US, are mentioned here because they were referred to by the UK Government. I think that's still important in the context of the history of the law. The article says "Such images are legal in the US, and it has been claimed they would be hard to ban without violating the First Amendment.", but I think that is important context for the point that the UK Government couldn't get the sites shut down, due to them being legal. Is there more coverage of US law that isn't on topic?
- I agree that some of the organisation could be improved - this is probably a consequence of the article evolving during the passage of the law, but with lots of it not being updated accordingly. I've made a couple of changes, I'll try to have a better look later on. Mdwh (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- "please read ref - the judge returned not guilty in 1st case after prosecution offered by evidence, no indication that this was put to a jury; added clarification (for 2nd case, charges were dropped)" says "Mdwh"
- You don't need to read the reference, as the Wikipedia text explains to the reader. But you were trying to change the Wikipedia text in a way that wasn't consistent with the ref (as an editor, yes you should read the references!) I'm not sure what that edit has to do with your earlier points about being internally consistent - I address your comment above, so I would need to see your response to my points, to respond further. Mdwh (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a seperate article about illegal or extreme porn? why not widen the scope to international regulation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)