Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
Old story, but nothing has changed. Each country have their own laws and the Obscene Publications Act is the relevant law in the UK. US laws like USC 2257 do not apply in the UK.
Any OPA allegation still has a "capture all" precedent for any person resident in the UK and involved in "illegal activities" under the Act - eg the fact that they conduct a business where an element of that business may involve uploading material deemed to be obscene to an internet server (irrespective where that server is located).
The reality of Wadden's case was that he was a wanker and along with his CP partner (who subsequently served 2 years for CP) they pushed the boat out beyond a level of acceptability. In effect, they just reversed many years of legal progress in the adult biz and gave good reason for further oversight.
However, that was almost 10 years ago and there has been little success in prosecutions under the OPA in that time - juries have had rational views on porn and it's not easy getting a conviction. There are areas which will be prosecuted and these are clearly laid out in guidelines from the Director of Publication Prosecutions (basically extreme violence, CP et al), but the DDP does not appear to waste time on borderline cases.
This case has little to do with USC 2257 and there are no "record keeping" laws - other than obvious basic model released and ID stuff which is standard, not only in the UK, but internationally with print media editors.
The old basic rule still applies - "Comply with the laws of the country in which you reside" - all others are irrelevant. Generally, UK laws re "adult" are still far more "acceptable" to the adult industry than those in the US - for many reasons. But... it's still possible to get "caught out" in both countries if there is a motivation.
|
Thankyou for a sensible rational reply and post. I spent most of last night digging through court transcripts trying to find what this guy was accused of, maybe im shit at searching but i couldnt find the case. It does seem that he ran an animal site which you DONT do in the UK.
I worked my way though every Obscene Publications Act prosecution that i could find that was since this ruling, and found NOTHING that wasnt real obscene (scat, vomit and so on). I did find stuff relating to video sales but this is touchy in the UK if they dont hold the right BBFC cert.
I have made contact with a Solicitor and im looking to get some good legal advice but from what i can tell, this is just ruling that if you publish an obscene site in the US from the UK you are still subject to UK law. If you have any info on the actual case id love to hear about it. Ive heard like you say that his partner did CP and ive heard that animals were involved, they may have simply bundled all his porn into one case as most of the transcripts mentioned breasts and very tame stuff that wasnt the actual charge, but an overview of what the accused produced.
BTW, this doesnt have "little" to do with 2257 - it has NOTHING to do with 2257. The judgement never stated that we are bound by USA law, it stated the reverse from what i have found.
Also, all our sites are legally indecent and if you dont have a warning in place, ive read that you may be charged with indecency. Worth getting legal advice on imo