UK Bans Porn Made in the USA

[headless ghost]

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/07/20539

Internet porn suffered a blow this week when a British judge ruled that the content of American Web sites could be subject to British jurisdiction.

The landmark ruling, issued Wednesday, is a victory for British authorities, who have battled porn on the Internet for years. But privacy advocates worry the ruling could pose a threat to privacy rights.


"This is a free-speech issue and a privacy issue," said Yaman Akdeniz, director of Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties, UK. "The message the police, courts, and government are sending is, if you are a UK citizen, you won?t be able to sell pornography because anything you sell will be considered obscene."

British law prohibits the distribution of pornography for financial gain under its Obscene Publications Act of 1959. The law was amended in 1994 to include computer-related pornography. Privacy advocates say the laws are out of touch with the times.

"[British laws] are very restrictive and far behind the US laws on obscenity," Akdeniz said. "An erect penis would be obscene in the UK. So that would mean that most of the stuff on the Internet itself would be considered obscene."

Just after the ruling, 28-year-old businessman Graham Waddon pleaded guilty to running Britain's largest Internet porn operation, according to a story by the BBC.

Waddon ran a group of for-profit US porn sites from his home in Sutton, South of London, with titles such as FarmSex, Europerv, and Schoolgirls-'R'-Us. As such, he argued the porn material was published outside of Britain.

Southwark Crown Court Judge Christopher Hardy disagreed. He ruled that the publication occurred when Waddon transmitted the material to the Web sites and when British police downloaded it.

British police were thrilled with the ruling, according to the BBC.

"The judge?s findings mean [Waddon] and others like him who try to avoid prosecution by placing this material abroad are making a big mistake," Neal Ysart of the Obscene Publications and Internet Unit told reporters. "They will be prosecuted."

But privacy advocates are concerned that the new law will keep an anachronistic system from changing with the times.

"The real issue behind the debate is the current state of obscenity laws in the UK," Akdeniz said. "They are very antiquated and do not represent the Information Age -- we?re not in the '50s any more."

[JD]

holy shit....

[GatorB]

I remember all these Euros saying that US laws like 2257 didn't apply to them. In fact being quite nasty about it. WTF do they have to say about this?

[headless ghost]

this can't be good

[seeric]

so their laws are more harsh than us, but all the while many that live over there have been taunting us and making fun of us when they are actually in more danger than we are?

sounds to me like the british govt has a bigger hard on for adult than the u.s. does by reading that.

[TampaToker]

you know i was gonna post that but the article date fucked me up lol

[MaxCandy]

Story from 1999?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by MaxCandy

Story from 1999?

Good eye. I assume when someone posts a link they at least not retarded enough as to not know the date of article

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I remember all these Euros saying that US laws like 2257 didn't apply to them. In fact being quite nasty about it. WTF do they have to say about this?

1. Has nothing to do with " paper filing law " 2257. So they don't apply.
2. You must obey the laws of the country you ARE in ( so much for the americans or Brits hosting abroad ...)
3. UK is not really a " Euro " country ... they opted out of pretty much everything
4. Anglo-saxon countries are not porn-friendly

[crockett]

only in America..

[Dirty Dane]

That is OLD news!

[Sarah_Jayne]

Rubbish and old rubbish at that.

[D]

This thread inspired a thought of mine, but I opted to start another thread in regards to it - to get away from the outdated article...

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/759960-industry-banned-world-travel.html

[pornguy]

And they say the US is bad?????

[media]

WOW... This is crazy, I bet alot of people from the UK are gonna be running scared...

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by headless ghost

UK Bans Porn Made in the USA

Good for them, the German porn is far better

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by media

WOW... This is crazy, I bet alot of people from the UK are gonna be running scared...

Well, as it was written in 1999 ..we appear not to have run that far

[Scott McD]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I remember all these Euros saying that US laws like 2257 didn't apply to them. In fact being quite nasty about it. WTF do they have to say about this?

They say "welcome to 8 years ago"

[jonesonyou]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

so their laws are more harsh than us, but all the while many that live over there have been taunting us and making fun of us when they are actually in more danger than we are?

sounds to me like the british govt has a bigger hard on for adult than the u.s. does by reading that.

U.S. not so bad after all.

[RawAlex]

TIMELINE! You people aren't very observant, the article is from 1999.

WAKE UP!

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Scott McD

They say "welcome to 8 years ago"

Yes I realised that after I posted it and in fact I mention that. Thanks for keeping up.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Welcome to 1999.

That was just before the crash.

Now all the internet companies need porn just to survive.

[CIVMatt]

Thats fine I'm banning UK content models from appearing on US websites

[_Richard_]

thank god the porn industry is keeping up with the times lol

[CurrentlySober]

I also liked poo in 1999...

[IllTestYourGirls]

im going to party like its 1999

[Clark Miller]

Hey I just found out...

[GreyWolf]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I remember all these Euros saying that US laws like 2257 didn't apply to them. In fact being quite nasty about it. WTF do they have to say about this?

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.

[Big Red Machine]

Everyone Watch out for the Y2K Bug.....lol

[Lonely immortal]

F*ck please don't scare me like this I'm only starting out in the adult business and that story nearly gave me a heart attack lol

[gornyhuy]

Holy Crap, did you guys read this?

NAZI FLIERS POUND SOUTHWEST BRITAIN; Port, Probably Plymouth, Has Hard Attack Through Night -- London at 'Alert' R.A.F. BOMBS COLOGNE Fires Set There, Duesseldorf and Brest Struck, Nazi Ships Hit in Offensive

April 22, 1941, Tuesday
By JAMES MacDONALDSpecial Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Page 7, 553 words

DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - LONDON, Tuesday, April 22 -- An important point in Southwestern England suffered a Nazi air raid during the night. Accounts available in London early today indicated the raid developed to real "Blitz" proportions. ...

JESUS!!!

[Swish]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Holy Crap, did you guys read this?

NAZI FLIERS POUND SOUTHWEST BRITAIN; Port, Probably Plymouth, Has Hard Attack Through Night -- London at 'Alert' R.A.F. BOMBS COLOGNE Fires Set There, Duesseldorf and Brest Struck, Nazi Ships Hit in Offensive

April 22, 1941, Tuesday
By JAMES MacDONALDSpecial Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Page 7, 553 words

DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - LONDON, Tuesday, April 22 -- An important point in Southwestern England suffered a Nazi air raid during the night. Accounts available in London early today indicated the raid developed to real "Blitz" proportions. ...

JESUS!!!

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Holy Crap, did you guys read this?

NAZI FLIERS POUND SOUTHWEST BRITAIN; Port, Probably Plymouth, Has Hard Attack Through Night -- London at 'Alert' R.A.F. BOMBS COLOGNE Fires Set There, Duesseldorf and Brest Struck, Nazi Ships Hit in Offensive

April 22, 1941, Tuesday
By JAMES MacDONALDSpecial Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Page 7, 553 words

DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - LONDON, Tuesday, April 22 -- An important point in Southwestern England suffered a Nazi air raid during the night. Accounts available in London early today indicated the raid developed to real "Blitz" proportions. ...

JESUS!!!

Ba, ha ha!

[marcjacob]

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

[Sarah_Jayne]

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.

Thank you ...that should be copied into this thread on every board it was posted at.

[GreyWolf]

Originally Posted by kermey

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

Correct kermy - at least one website had the farm sex "aura" and there was an "association" with a CP partner. As far as I remember Waddon's partner may have been a US citizen and he was convicted and jailed in the US for a term of 2 years.

Correct - my "words" were loose re 2257 - it has no validity outside US territory. And no, the judge did not say that a UK citizen is bound by US laws - that is outside his jurisdiction. Briefly, the location of the offence was the UK in that obscene material was uploaded to a server by Waddon from the UK.

I've lost track of the current possible laws in the UK - not sure about the term "indecent" and agree - it's better to ask a solictor. There is one very dangerous law with does use the term "indecent" - Post Office Act 1953 (c36), but that only applies to mailed items. It's an amusing law since technically it could apply to sending a copy of the Sun newspaper by mail and "page 3 girls" could be the mildest form of indecency - that that's enough for a conviction

On Waddon's stuff - here's a more legal link re Judge Hardy's findings/logic:

http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/rvgraham.htm

And here's the solictors summary (which may be much the same as above:

Case Name:
R v GRAHAM WADDON (1999)

Court:
Southwark Crown Court (HH Judge Hardy) 30/6/99

Subject:
CRIME - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

Descriptors:
INTERNET : OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS : JURISDICTION : PUBLICATION ABROAD : S.69
POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 : CERTIFICATE : TRANSMITTING DATA : IMAGES : COMPUTERS

Summary:
When an image had been transmitted across the Internet the act of publication took place when the data was transmitted by the defendant or his agent to the service provider, and the publication or transmission was in effect still taking place when the data was received. The computers involved in the transmission of the data were mere post boxes, therefore the only certificate that the prosecution needed to provide was from the computer from which the image had been obtained.


Text:
The defendant was charged with numerous counts of publishing obscene articles contrary to s.2(1) Obscene Publications Act 1959. The defendant had created images and put them on his computer, transferred them via an internet service provider to a number of websites. The images were accessible to anyone in the world via the Internet by giving of credit card details and becoming a subscriber. The subscriber was given a password and could log onto the various websites to obtain the images. It was submitted on behalf of the defendant firstly that, because of the nature of the Internet publication had necessarily occurred abroad and therefore the instant court did not have jurisdiction. Secondly it was submitted that s.69 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ('PACE') had not been complied with. Section 69 required positive evidence that the computer in question had properly processed, stored and reproduced whatever information it received and that to make sense of the section and the purpose for which it was passed - namely to ensure that there had not been any computer malfunction - certficates should have been provided for all the computers involved in the process (see R v Cochran (1993) Crim LR 48). It was argued that despite the fact that technology had moved on since the drafting of the 1984 Act, s.69 had to be strictly applied. Without certificates that there had been no computer malfunction for all the computers involved in the process of transmission through which the data had passed across the Internet, there was no admissible evidence of publication. The prosecution submitted however, that s.69 did not require every computer in circumstances such as these to have a certificate but only the computer producing the document in question. Attention was drawn to Sch.3, Part 11 of the 1984 Act which stated that in estimating the weight to be attached to a statement generated by a computer regard should be had to all the circumstances from which any inference could reasonably be drawn as to its accuracy. The only certificate provided by the prosecution was from the computer from which the image had been obtained.


HELD: (1) Publishing an article under s.1(3)(b) of the 1959 Act included data
stored electronically and transmitted. To transmit simply meant to send on
from one place or person to another. In the instant case an act of publication
took place when the data was transmitted by the defendant or his agent to the service provider, and the publication or transmission was in effect still
taking place when the data was received. Both the sending and receiving took place within the jurisdiction of the court and it was irrelevant that the
transmission may have left the jurisdiction in between the sending and receiving. (2) The transmission of the data could have passed through dozens if not hundreds of computers both in and outside the jurisdiction and it was impracticable if not impossible for the prosecution to certificate every computer involved in the transmission of the data. The computers involved in the transmission of the data across the Internet were mere post boxes, and did not alter or directly interfere with the original image provided to the internet service provider.
Therefore the computer producing the document in question needed to be the only certificate provided by the prosecution, and the evidence was admissible.

Finding for the prosecution.

The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions actually publish a useful list of what they will prosecute and are actually helpful - they have a website, but can't find the right area. "Obscene material" is generally involving any of the following - extreme violence, CP, torture, scat et al. It would take some effort to obtain a conviction for "normal sexual activity" and doubt the Director would want to proceed with this type of case. There is usually more in the background when they proceed to court (usual stuff - CP, drugs, fraud etc).

[GreyWolf]

Originally Posted by Sarah_MaxCash

Thank you ...that should be copied into this thread on every board it was posted at.

My pleasure Sarah

[testpie]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

Holy Crap, did you guys read this?

NAZI FLIERS POUND SOUTHWEST BRITAIN; Port, Probably Plymouth, Has Hard Attack Through Night -- London at 'Alert' R.A.F. BOMBS COLOGNE Fires Set There, Duesseldorf and Brest Struck, Nazi Ships Hit in Offensive

April 22, 1941, Tuesday
By JAMES MacDONALDSpecial Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Page 7, 553 words

DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - LONDON, Tuesday, April 22 -- An important point in Southwestern England suffered a Nazi air raid during the night. Accounts available in London early today indicated the raid developed to real "Blitz" proportions. ...

JESUS!!!

[potter]

i sale cheap underground usa porn

[Tuga]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I remember all these Euros saying that US laws like 2257 didn't apply to them. In fact being quite nasty about it. WTF do they have to say about this?

I have to say.... fuck the UK, they always have to be different from the rest of Europe

[alby_persignup]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

TIMELINE! You people aren't very observant, the article is from 1999.

WAKE UP!

yeah sounds classic!