Man could face prison over six second 'extreme porn' clip
 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03...x_second_clip/

is this absurd or what? from when is having porn on your HD (even if it's 'Extreme') illegal ?

Yes. It is.
:disgust

did anyone besides me find it ironic that this pic was an advert next to the story?

http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/03/23/cow_fart_sidey.jpg

there's got to be something more to the story than just a vid of someone fucking a cartoon tiger.

from when is having porn on your HD (even if it's 'Extreme') illegal
Since before Gary Glitter went to prison for being a kiddie fiddler after taking his computer to PC World to be repaired.

learn to read.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01...pron_law_live/

It seems the UK sucks even more than I remember it sucking.

That's crazy as hell. How much time can would a jury give you for 6 seconds?

This is what happens when laws are created based solely on interpretation... Yet more proof that man is placing emotions and feelings above logic and reason.

The idea that something is "extreme" is completely fucking subjective. You might say jumping out of a plane is extreme, I'll tell you it's not that base jumping is, the base jumper will tell you low altitude pulls are extreme...

Some stuck up prudes will tell you a BJ is extreme and inappropriate, Australia will tell you that small tits are inappropriate on a 30 year old...

People need to stop thinking with their emotions and only define laws based on FACTS and provable evidence... you know, how law is supposed to work...

This guy who clearly is not collecting extreme porn if all her has is one 6 second clip. The judge is fucked up.

I think they were pissed off because they looked like idiots over the cartoon tiger charge, so decided to get him for the other charge instead.
But yes, it's a fucked up law.

ok. they need to write their articles in a way that makes me read every word instead of missing most of the second half because I got bored.

the extreme porn law is very subjective though. something I would look at and think nothing of could be presented to someone else on a jury panel who would decide it's nasty. Equally something they might think nothing of I might find quite distasteful.

Running a law on the opinions of 12 randomly selected idiots finding something grossly offensive is a bit iffy anyway as you could find yourself in front of a jury full of catholic priests that let you off straight away so they can get back to bumming choirboys or a jury full of easily offended little old ladies that want to have you locked up for life.

:1orglaugh Wouldn't hurt, huh?