The High Court of the UK has ruled against any web, phone or mail order sale of porn. - GoFuckYourself.com

StuartD · 05-26-2005, 10:10 AM

http://www.pimpcafe.com/article2/art...p?article=3436

"Indeed, the only purpose which such an interpretation of the law would serve would be to damage the local economy in favor of the economy in France or the Netherlands," said David Pannick while defending Interfact at the hearing while also adding that prohibiting mail order would breach Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression - of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Interfact was fined £3,000 for one offence of supplying and £2,000 for one offence of offering to supply. It was ordered to pay £25,617 prosecution costs.

Pabo Ltd was fined £2,500 in relation to one offence. It was ordered to pay £22,314 prosecution costs.

guschi2k · 05-26-2005, 10:21 AM

wtf? all governments etc. running wild lately ?

Manowar · 05-26-2005, 10:23 AM

this isnt a new law, they merely upheld it

Screaming · 05-26-2005, 10:26 AM

wow not good

Apache_A · 05-26-2005, 10:27 AM

The Title of this thread is misleading.

The case was only regarding clarification of current R18 video regulations

Apache_A · 05-26-2005, 10:28 AM

But as screaming so poeticaly put it, 'not good'

Holly · 05-26-2005, 11:00 AM

You're in trouble when Sara Webinc sees this. Ask Colin.

Sarah_Jayne · 05-26-2005, 11:02 AM

*sigh* this about the fourth thread on this board alone..it is about a physical video..not 'virtual' content and it is just upholding the law as it is as the moment. It changes NOTHING.

Sarah_Jayne · 05-26-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

You're in trouble when Sara Webinc sees this. Ask Colin.

lol..I was writing my response before I saw this.

Yo Adrian · 05-26-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NichePay - StuartD

Interfact was fined £3,000 for one offence of supplying and £2,000 for one offence of offering to supply. It was ordered to pay £25,617 prosecution costs.

Pabo Ltd was fined £2,500 in relation to one offence. It was ordered to pay £22,314 prosecution costs.

WTF?

It would be cheaper to get busted for prostitution!!

Why do they care if some chap wants to wank off in his flat?

Lee · 05-26-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yo Adrian

WTF?

It would be cheaper to get busted for prostitution!!

Why do they care if some chap wants to wank off in his flat?

Its in case that chap is a minor chap.

ADL Colin · 05-26-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

You're in trouble when Sara Webinc sees this. Ask Colin.

12345 heh

Platinumpimp · 05-26-2005, 11:24 AM

Yea I read about it yesterday. Retarded decission.

05-26-2005, 10:10 AM	#1
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	The High Court of the UK has ruled against any web, phone or mail order sale of porn. http://www.pimpcafe.com/article2/art...p?article=3436 "Indeed, the only purpose which such an interpretation of the law would serve would be to damage the local economy in favor of the economy in France or the Netherlands," said David Pannick while defending Interfact at the hearing while also adding that prohibiting mail order would breach Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression - of the European Convention on Human Rights. Interfact was fined £3,000 for one offence of supplying and £2,000 for one offence of offering to supply. It was ordered to pay £25,617 prosecution costs. Pabo Ltd was fined £2,500 in relation to one offence. It was ordered to pay £22,314 prosecution costs. __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

05-26-2005, 10:21 AM	#2
guschi2k Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: ...blablablabla... Posts: 489	wtf? all governments etc. running wild lately ? __________________ $$$ PimpRoll converts like a mofu, don't miss out on this shit $$$

05-26-2005, 10:26 AM	#4
Screaming I can change this!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 18,972	wow not good __________________

05-26-2005, 10:27 AM	#5
Apache_A Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 434	The Title of this thread is misleading. The case was only regarding clarification of current R18 video regulations __________________ ICQ:2116226

05-26-2005, 10:28 AM	#6
Apache_A Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 434	But as screaming so poeticaly put it, 'not good' __________________ ICQ:2116226

05-26-2005, 10:23 AM	#3
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	this isnt a new law, they merely upheld it

05-26-2005, 11:00 AM	#7
Holly Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Jesusland Posts: 10,017	You're in trouble when Sara Webinc sees this. Ask Colin. __________________ War National Damn Champions Eagle

05-26-2005, 11:02 AM	#8
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	sigh this about the fourth thread on this board alone..it is about a physical video..not 'virtual' content and it is just upholding the law as it is as the moment. It changes NOTHING.

05-26-2005, 11:24 AM	#13
Platinumpimp Logos and such. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Kingdom of the Netherlands Posts: 10,214	Yea I read about it yesterday. Retarded decission. __________________ I design logo's.