Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scotty.T
|
Not surprised Scotty! If that shit ain't gross, nada is. These kind of sites give "porn" a bad name.
The UK Obscene Publications Act already has very suitable wording that may well cover this type of content, namely, "that which has a tendency to corrupt and deprave.." The problem then is, who says the subject material has a "tendency to corrupt and deprave"? Some expert? Juries have, probably correctly, returning not guilty verdicts on "real porn" (ie normal fucking) under this act, but they may be more likely to convict on the extreme violent material that purports to be "porn". It may be overdue for the wording of the Act to something more specific.
Hell knows how strangulation, necrophilia and torture fall into the category of "porn" as we know it today - sounds more like a case for a psychiatric confinement, - even for assholes who publish the shit.