{{Short description|UK law concerning pornography}} {{Use British English|date=August 2025}} {{Redirect|Violent pornography|the song|Violent Pornography (song)}} {{pp-move}} {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2020}} {{Sex and the Law}} Section 63 of the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]] is a law in the United Kingdom criminalising possession of what it refers to as "extreme pornographic images".<ref name=opsisect63>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-etc|work=Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008|title=Section 63 - Possession of extreme pornographic images|year=2008|access-date=23 August 2010|archive-date=14 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101014213551/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-etc|url-status=live}}</ref> The law came into force on 26 January 2009.<ref>{{cite news |first=John |last=Ozimek |title=Government finally names the day for porn ban |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/pr0n_ban_date/ |publisher=The Register |date=26 November 2008 |access-date=6 December 2008 |archive-date=5 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205054106/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/pr0n_ban_date/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=New offence of possession of extreme pornographic images |url=http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement261108a.htm |publisher=Ministry of Justice |date=26 November 2008 |access-date=6 December 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081210015947/http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement261108a.htm |archive-date=10 December 2008}}</ref> The legislation was brought in following the [[murder of Jane Longhurst]] by a man who was said at the time of his trial to have had "extreme pornography" in his possession at the time of the death. The law has been more widely used than originally predicted, raising concerns as to whether the legislation is being used for prosecutions beyond the scope originally envisaged by parliament.

==The law== The law, part of the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]], applies to [[pornography]] (defined as an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of [[sexual arousal]]") which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays "in an explicit and realistic way" any of the following: * An act threatening a person's life * An act which results (or is likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals * An act which involves (or appears to involve) sexual interference [[necrophilia|with a human corpse]] * A person performing (or appearing to perform) an act of intercourse (or [[oral sex]]) [[zoophilia|with a non-human animal]] (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person (or animal) was real.

Additionally, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 amended section 63<ref name=opsisect37>{{cite web|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/37#section-37-2-c|work=Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015|title=Section 37 - Possession of pornographic images of rape and assault by penetration|year=2015}}</ref> to include: * An act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or * An act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else

The term covers staged acts, and applies whether or not the participants consent.<ref>The [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/ Government consultation] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902114812/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/ |date=2 September 2006 }} states "whether or not they notionally or genuinely consent to take part"; and "actual scenes or realistic depictions".</ref><ref>The [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 Explanatory Notes] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170706232658/https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 |date=6 July 2017 }} state the Government's opinion that the participants' consent is not legally valid (see [[Operation Spanner]]) and hence not a justification under this new law (803); and states "In the case of images of staged activity, the Government believes that banning possession is justified&nbsp;..." (804).</ref> Films classified by the [[British Board of Film Classification]] are exempt, but an extract from a classified film (if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal) would not be exempt.<ref>{{cite web|title=Classified films|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an08|publisher=Crown Prosecution service|access-date=22 March 2016|archive-date=17 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131117173049/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an08|url-status=dead}}</ref> Whether or not an image is "pornographic" is up to the magistrate (or jury) to determine by looking at the image. It is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image.<ref name=guidance/>

If an image is held in a person's possession as part of a series of images, the question of whether it is pornographic is also determined by the context in which it appears. Therefore, an image might be legal in some contexts but not others. Serious injury is not defined by the act, but is up to the magistrate or jury.<ref name=guidance/> Guidance on the bill gives examples of activity which would be covered: depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon; the insertion of sharp objects into (or the mutilation of) breasts or genitals.<ref name=guidance/>

The definition of "obscene" is not the same as that used in the [[Obscene Publications Acts]], which requires that an image "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it; instead, this is the ordinary dictionary definition of "obscene". "Grossly offensive" and "disgusting" are given as examples of "obscene".<ref name=guidance/>

As was demonstrated by a court decision in 2014, so long as it can be demonstrated that the recipient stored the images then it is not necessary to prove that those in possession of offending images had solicited them. Thus it is possible to contravene the law as a result of receiving unsolicited images.<ref name=Eleftheriou>{{cite news | last = Eleftheriou-Smith | first = Loulla-Mae | title = Two men convicted for possessing extreme 'WhatsApp porn' that wasn't viewed | work = [[The Independent]] | publisher = Independent Print Limited | date = 4 August 2014 | quote = Mr Ticehurst, said the photos were on his phone for two months, and that he had "completely forgot about them". }}</ref>

There is a defence if the defendant can prove that they "directly participated" in the act and the other participants also consented, but only if the acts are those which can be legally consented to in the UK. This defence is not available to the photographer or other "onlookers" who were present, but did not directly participate.<ref name=guidance>{{cite web |title=Further information on the new offence of Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images |url=http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf |archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090215193630/http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf |archive-date=15 February 2009 |publisher=Ministry of Justice |access-date=6 December 2008}}</ref>

Where the first two clauses above apply, the maximum sentence is three years (36 months); otherwise, the maximum is two years (24 months). Adults sentenced to at least two years (24 months) will be placed on the [[Violent and Sex Offender Register]] for 10 years if the sentence is less than 30 months and Indefinite if the sentence is fixed period more than 30 months. A minor offence may result in just a fine.<ref name=Eleftheriou />

==History== After [[Graham Coutts]]' conviction in February 2004, the government and police forces called for "violent" adult pornography sites to be shut down<ref>{{cite news |title=Blunkett to urge US web porn curb |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3515797.stm |publisher=BBC |date=24 February 2004 |access-date=15 November 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=MP calls for violent porn ban |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/3471441.stm |publisher=BBC |date=9 February 2004 |access-date=15 November 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=UK police seek web porn crackdown |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3460855.stm |publisher=BBC |date=5 February 2004 |access-date=15 November 2008}}</ref> and Jane Longhurst's mother and sister launched a campaign against such sites. A petition (which gained 50,000 signatures) promoted by MP [[Martin Salter]] was submitted to the government, demanding a ban of "extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification". The government was unsuccessful in shutting down such sites, since they are based in other countries and are legally made with consenting adults. In August 2005 the British government consulted on, instead, criminalising the possession of such images.

On 30 August 2006, the government published the results of the consultation, and announced its intention to introduce a possession ban on all extreme pornography as soon as the legislative timetable allowed. Opinions on the proposals were sharply divided in the consultation, with 61 percent (241 out of 397) of responses rejecting the need for stronger laws in this area and 36 percent in favour (3 percent gave no opinion). The proposed maximum penalty for possession of these images was three years' imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web |title=Consultation on the possession of extreme pornographic material |url=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/Gvt-response-extreme-porn2.pdf?view=Binary |publisher=[[Home Office]] |date=August 2006 |access-date=19 November 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205105924/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/Gvt-response-extreme-porn2.pdf?view=Binary |archive-date=5 February 2007}}</ref>

On 26 June 2007, the government published the plans as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The bill extended the scope of the proposals from "serious, disabling injury" to "serious injury". The law came into force on 26 January 2009. In July 2009, [[Baroness O'Cathain]] proposed an amendment to the [[Coroners and Justice Act 2009|Coroners and Justice Act]] which would bring in an equivalent law for "extreme pornographic writings".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/033/amend/su033-ivb.htm |title=Amendment text (3 July 2009) |publisher=parliament.uk |date=3 July 2009 |access-date=30 November 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/06/dangerous_writings_endangered |title=Tory Lady tries to give bodice-rippers the snip |publisher=The Register |date=6 July 2009}}</ref>

There have been many more prosecutions under the law than the 30 cases a year originally predicted by ministers. In 2011–12, there were 1,337 prosecutions and in 2012–13 there were 1,348.<ref name="guardian_extremeporntrial">{{cite news |author=Myles Jackman |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/aug/08/extreme-porn-trial-simon-walsh |title=Extreme porn trial: consensual sex and the state |work=The Guardian |date=2012-08-08 |access-date=2013-01-04 |location=London |archive-date=30 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230530161042/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/aug/08/extreme-porn-trial-simon-walsh |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/03/text_talk_legal_status/|title=UK judges quietly declare text chat can be obscene|work=theregister.co.uk|access-date=20 September 2015}}</ref> By 2015, there were still more than 1,000 annual prosecutions.<ref name=Cowen/> This has raised concerns that the legislation may be being used for prosecutions beyond the scope originally envisaged by parliament. Prosecutors are said to be unsure of the meaning of the law due to a lack of guidance explaining those categories that are difficult to define. The [[House of Lords]] was promised by the government just prior to the enactment of the legislation that such guidance would be issued, but this did not happen.<ref>{{cite web|author=Jerry Barnett|title=Letter to MPs on Criminalising "Rape Porn"|url=http://sexandcensorship.org/2014/02/rape-porn-letter-to-parliament/|publisher=Sex & Censorship|date=20 February 2014|access-date=21 February 2014|archive-date=26 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181126005916/http://sexandcensorship.org/2014/02/rape-porn-letter-to-parliament/|url-status=live}}</ref> The lack of clarity means that the law would apparently outlaw images which have been exhibited in art galleries, such as the material from [[Robert Mapplethorpe]]'s ''X Portfolio'', which was included in the [[Barbican Centre|Barbican Gallery]]'s ''Seduced'' exhibition in 2008.<ref>{{cite web|title=Porn Trial - Consensual Sex and The State|url=http://mylesjackman.com/index.php/my-blog/111-porn-trial-consensual-sex-and-the-state|author=Myles Jackman|date=18 April 2015|access-date=28 April 2015|publisher=Myles Jackman|archive-date=25 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150425220131/http://www.mylesjackman.com/index.php/my-blog/111-porn-trial-consensual-sex-and-the-state|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The possession of [[rape pornography]] in England and Wales was not criminalised by the legislation. However, the [[Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015]] amended the Act to include such a prohibition.

===Notable uses=== <!--This is coverage of cases that may be seen as notable in some way (e.g., first/early cases of a particular kind, test cases, notable sentences), rather than trying to be an exhaustive list of anyone found guilty under the law.--> * A 20-year-old St Helens man was prosecuted on 10 February 2009 for having "extreme" images involving women and animals.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/4427000.Man_guilty_of_animal_porn_image_charges/ |title=St Helens man guilty of animal porn image charges |work=St Helens Star |date=9 June 2009 |access-date=30 November 2009}}</ref> The images were reported by a PC repair shop. He was given an 18-month supervision order, 24 hours at an attendance centre and had to pay costs of £65.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/4445020.Man_had__grossly_offensive_and_disgusting__porn_images_on_computer/ |title=Man had 'grossly offensive and disgusting' porn images on computer |work=St Helens Star |date=18 June 2009 |access-date=30 November 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/dangerous_pictures_act/|title=PC repair techs police dangerous picture law |first=Jane |last=Fae |date=26 June 2009|work=[[The Register]]}}</ref> * In June 2009 ''[[The Register]]'' claimed that according to their sources in law enforcement, there have been two or three prosecutions against people selling Chinese bootlegged DVDs (which include some bestiality DVDs).<ref>{{cite news|work=The Register |title=Extreme porn law used on beastly Chinese DVD pirates |first=Jane |last=Fae |date=16 June 2009 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16/extreme_pr0n_convictions}}</ref> A later case in 2010 also involved the use against someone selling unlicensed DVDs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/news/8348408.Hatfield_police_celebrate_first_conviction_for_extreme_porn_under_new_laws/ |title=Hatfield police celebrate first conviction for extreme porn under new laws |first=Manisha |last=Mistry |newspaper=St Albans & Harpenden Review |date=2010-08-24 |access-date=2013-01-04}}</ref> In January 2011, a South African national living in Berkshire was sentenced to 12 months in prison, followed by [[deportation]], for having downloaded 261 videos of people having sex with dogs, pigs, horses and donkeys. He also received additional concurrent sentences of two months and one month for four images of children which he had also downloaded, allegedly inadvertently.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/acts-depravity-found-dads-computer-4218260 |title='Acts of depravity' found on dad's computer |newspaper=[[Reading Post]] |date=26 January 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211010203552/https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/acts-depravity-found-dads-computer-4218260 |archive-date=2021-10-10 |access-date=29 March 2022}}</ref> * On 31 December 2009, a man was found not guilty under the law; he was cleared by a judge, after the prosecution offered no evidence against him. The film he was charged with possessing depicted a sexual act with a tiger, but it emerged that the tiger in the film was not real and the image was a joke. Police and prosecutors admitted that they had not watched the film with sound turned on.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6918001/Man-cleared-of-porn-charge-after-tiger-sex-image-found-to-be-joke.html | author=<!-- Staff writer(s); no by-line --> |work=The Daily Telegraph | location=London | title=Man cleared of porn charge after 'tiger sex' image found to be joke | date=31 December 2009 | access-date=23 May 2010}}</ref> In March 2010, the same man pleaded guilty on a second charge for a six-second video clip involving humans, having been told by his [[legal aid]] defence team that this was his only chance to avoid prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/22/six_second_clip/|title=Man could face prison over six second 'extreme porn' clip|first=Jane|last=Fae|date=22 March 2010|work=[[The Register]]|access-date=29 March 2022}}</ref> However, when a judge told him to prepare for a custodial sentence he changed his plea to not guilty, having taken advice from the pressure group [[Backlash (pressure group)|Backlash]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=667 |title=Backlash Press Release: Tiger Porn defendant miscarriage of justice averted |publisher=Backlash |date=2010-05-28 |access-date=2013-01-04 |archive-date=10 July 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110710122006/http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=667 |url-status=dead }}</ref> A new trial was arranged, but the prosecution chose to withdraw charges before it could begin.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/|title=Extreme porn law on the ropes|first=Jane|last=Fae|work=The Register|access-date=20 September 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=731 |title=Extreme porn charge dropped due to Backlash intervention |publisher=Backlash |date=2010-08-09 |access-date=2013-01-04 |archive-date=31 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100831121918/http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=731 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 2014 a human rights impact assessment of the law by the [[Crown Prosecution Service]] was requested under the [[Human Rights Act 1998]]; it was argued that the legislation lacks adequately clear definitions, there is insufficient prosecution guidance from the DPP, and that the offence is disproportionate to the legislation's intended aims.<ref>{{cite web |first=Myles |last=Jackman |title=Tiger Porn Victim Bites Back |url=http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/tiger-porn-victim-bites-back.html |publisher=Obscenity Lawyer |date=26 October 2014 |access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref>{{sps|date=March 2022}} * The law has been used against people possessing only images of human adults (as opposed to the animal clauses), who have pleaded guilty.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Porn-found-on-phone-.6433888.jp |title=Porn found on phone |publisher=Sunderland Echo |date=2010-07-22 |access-date=2024-12-25 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160405223256/http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/porn-found-on-phone-1-1503344 |archive-date=2016-04-05 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8346808.Dorset_Dentist_spared_prison_over_pain_porn/ |title=Dorset dentist spared prison over pain porn |first=Julie |last=Magee |work=Bournemouth Echo |date=23 August 2010 |access-date=24 September 2011}}</ref> * In February 2014 three police officers from the [[Diplomatic Protection Group]] were arrested on suspicion of sharing "extreme" pornographic images using mobile phones.<ref>{{cite news|first=Lewis|last=Smith|title=No 10 police officers arrested on suspicion of sending each other 'extreme pornographic images'|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-arrested-on-suspicion-of-sending-each-other-extreme-pornographic-images-9116209.html|newspaper=The Independent|date=8 February 2014|location=London|archive-date=5 April 2017|access-date=11 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170405165242/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-arrested-on-suspicion-of-sending-each-other-extreme-pornographic-images-9116209.html|url-status=live}}</ref> * In 2015 the footballer [[Adam Johnson (footballer)|Adam Johnson]] was arrested on suspicion of possessing animal pornography.<ref>{{cite news|title=Adam Johnson was arrested last year on suspicion of possessing extreme animal porn, it has emerged |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12202923/Adam-Johnson-to-be-sentenced-for-child-sex-offence.html |first=Nicola |last=Harley |date=24 March 2016 |newspaper=The Telegraph |access-date=27 March 2016}}</ref> In investigations, police found animal pornography on Johnson's laptop; he was not tried for possession of these files.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35891143 |title=Adam Johnson jailed for six years |work=BBC News |date=24 March 2016 |access-date=25 March 2016}}</ref>

===2011 test case=== In January 2011, a man was tried before [[Stafford Crown Court]] for possession of staged images depicting a knife attack and a drowning in a bath. The prosecution said, "There is a need to regulate images portraying sexual violence, to safeguard the decency of society and for the protection of women". Expert witness for the defence Feona Attwood said the images were like stills from a 1970s [[Hammer Film Productions|Hammer]] horror film. The trial was a landmark, possibly the first such case tested by a jury. It was also notable as a case where the defendant admitted that he intentionally downloaded and retained the images in question (as opposed to, for example, accidental downloading). On 6 January, the jury took 90 minutes to return a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The judge told them afterwards that this trial had been a test case; the legislation in question was still being interpreted.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/New-laws-test-landmark-trial/article-3065740-detail/article.html |title=Man stands trial accused of possessing extreme porn |publisher=Thisisstaffordshire.co.uk |date=2011-01-05 |access-date=2013-01-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Web-images-like-Hammer-horror-film-scenes-jury-told/article-3071185-detail/article.html |title=Experts tell jury that alleged 'extreme' porn images were like Hammer horror stills |publisher=Thisisstaffordshire.co.uk |date=2011-01-06 |access-date=2013-01-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/Man-47-denies-fake-images-porn-charges.htm |title=Local news from Stafford and Staffordshire &#124; Man, 47, denies 'fake images' porn charges |publisher=Staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk |date=2009-08-24 |access-date=2013-01-04 |archive-date=13 January 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110113191221/http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/Man-47-denies-fake-images-porn-charges.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Jury-acquits-landmark-porn-prosecution/article-3075439-detail/article.html |title=Not guilty verdict in 'extreme porn' test case |publisher=Thisisstaffordshire.co.uk |date=2011-01-07 |access-date=2013-01-04 |archive-date=2 June 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110602000414/http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Jury-acquits-landmark-porn-prosecution/article-3075439-detail/article.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=829 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110116062442/http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=829 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2011-01-16 |title=PRESS RELEASE: Schlock Horror! Stafford jury acquits fantasy porn defendant |publisher=Backlash-uk.org.uk |date=2011-01-07 |access-date=2013-01-04}}</ref>

===2012 test case===

In August 2012, [[Simon Walsh]], a former aide to then-[[mayor of London]] [[Boris Johnson]], was charged with possessing five images of "extreme pornography", which were not found by police on his computers, but as email attachments on a Hotmail server account. He was found not guilty on all counts. Three images were of [[urethral sounding]], and two of [[anal fisting]]. The images were all of consensual adult sexual activity.<ref name="guardian_extremeporntrial" /><ref>{{cite news|author=Caroline Davies |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/aug/08/boris-johnson-aide-extreme-pornography-cleared |title=Former Boris Johnson aide cleared of possession of 'extreme pornography' &#124; UK news &#124; guardian.co.uk |work=The Guardian|date= 8 August 2012|access-date=2013-01-04 |location=London}}</ref> The Crown Prosecution Service maintains that the acts depicted were "extreme" even if the jury disagreed in this case.<ref name=Cowen>{{cite journal|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=60|issue=2|pages=509–520|date=4 December 2015|title=Millian Liberalism and Extreme Pornography|last=Cowen|first=Nick|doi=10.1111/ajps.12238|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/COWMLA|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Scotland=== In 2004 a committee of [[Member of the Scottish Parliament|members of the Scottish Parliament]] (MSPs) backed a law to ban adult pornography, as the [[Equal opportunity|Equal Opportunities]] Committee supported a petition claiming links between pornography and sexual crimes and violence against women and children.<ref>"[https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3975523.stm MSPs back pornography ban calls]", BBC News, 2 November 2004. Retrieved 29 May 2006.</ref> A spokeswoman said, "While we have no plans to legislate we will, of course, continue to monitor the situation." In 2007, MSPs looked again at criminalising adult pornography in response to a call from Scottish Women Against Pornography for pornography to be classified as a hate crime against women. This was opposed by [[Feminists Against Censorship]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.scotsman.com/topstories/MSPs-set-to-take-close.3344392.jp |title=MSPs set to take close look at pornography |work=Edinburgh Evening News |publisher=Johnson Press|access-date=25 December 2024 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160126140603/http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/msps-set-to-take-close-look-at-pornography-1-1337153 |archive-date=2016-01-26}}</ref><ref name=BBC20070206>{{cite news |title=Youths 'access extreme websites' |date=6 February 2007 |work=BBC News |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6334167.stm}}</ref>

In September 2008, Scotland announced its own plans to criminalise possession of "extreme" pornography—extending the law further, including [[rape pornography|depictions of rape imagery]] and other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity (whether or not the participants actually consented).<ref>{{cite web |title=Revitalising Justice - Proposals To Modernise And Improve The Criminal Justice System |url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/24132838/4 |publisher=Scottish Government |date=September 2008 |access-date=19 November 2008 |archive-date=11 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211152855/http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/24132838/4 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="pornreg">{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/scottish_extreme/|title=Scottish Parliament pr0n law faces angry opposition|work=[[The Register]]}}</ref> The new law is included in Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, and covers images which realistically depict:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/index.htm|title=Bills - Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 24)|work=The Scottish Parliament}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/b24s3-introd.pdf|title=Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090711061517/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/b24s3-introd.pdf|archive-date=11 July 2009|date=2009|publisher=Scottish Parliament|access-date=10 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/42?view=plain |title=Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 |publisher=Legislation.gov.uk |access-date=2014-01-16}}</ref> * An act which takes (or threatens) a person's life * An act which results (or is likely to result) in a person's severe injury * Rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity * Sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse * An act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or an animal carcass) Again, the law covers images of staged acts so long as a reasonable person looking at the image would think it was real or shows harm,<ref name="pornreg" /> and applies whether or not the participants consented.

==Arguments== The government consultation stated that "the material may often cause serious physical and other harm to those involved in making it; in some cases the participants are clearly the victims of criminal offences". The consultation did not attempt to estimate the frequency of these events, and there is no evidence that such content is being distributed at all. The law would cover images (whether or not the participants consented), and would include not only images where extreme violence is taking place but also fictitious images (where people are role-playing such violence).

Material is considered extreme pornography only if the main purpose of creating it was to produce sexual arousal. This rules out most mainstream films, documentaries, war footage or instructional videos (regardless of content), although these would be included if images were extracted from them for the purpose of sexual arousal. Textual material or cartoon depictions are also excluded, regardless of theme or detail.

The consultation stated "it is possible that such material may encourage or reinforce interest in violent and aberrant sexual activity to the detriment of society as a whole", but that they do not have "sufficient evidence from which to draw any definite conclusions as to the likely long term impact of this kind of material"; there was an "absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects".

The consultation cited the case of Graham Coutts (who killed Jane Longhurst), suggesting a link between violent pornography and the murder. Coutts had previously accessed websites that offered such pornography (although he had been practicing [[erotic asphyxia]] for five years before exposure to such material), and had told psychiatrists in 1991 that he feared his thoughts might lead to criminal behaviour.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/sussex/6756863.stm|title=Musician 'had murderous thoughts'|date=15 June 2007|work=[[BBC Online]]}}</ref>

The government also wished to criminalise possession of the material, to reduce the risk of children coming into contact with it. The consultation cited a study which reported that "57% of all 9–19-year olds surveyed who use the Internet at least once a week had come into contact with pornography online", but did not distinguish among forms of pornography; the government had no plans to criminalize all pornography for the same reason.

In discussing the 2006 quashing of Coutts' conviction (Jane Longhurst's purported killer), a barrister supporting the Backlash stance observed:<ref>[http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/news.html backlash "News"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070406024126/http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/news.html |date=6 April 2007 }}</ref>

{{quotation|Lord Hutton's judgement points out that Coutts had engaged in breath play sexual games with previous partners years before he started to use internet porn. The Judge commented that if the same Defendant guilty of the same conduct been tried before the same jury, but without the evidence that he used internet porn, the jury would have been very likely to accept that he did not intend to kill. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Judge thought the evidence that Coutts used porn prejudiced the jury and led to unfounded assumptions about Coutt's intent. What this judgement shows is that the obsession with criminalising the users of porn will further prejudice juries and lead to miscarriages of justice.}}

In September 2007 the government published a Rapid Evidence Assessment by [[Catherine Itzin]], Ann Taket and Liz Kelly, investigating "the evidence of harm relating to exposure to extreme pornographic material".<ref>[http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research280907.htm "The evidence of harm to adults relating to exposure to extreme pornographic material"]. Ministry of Justice. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080317075235/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research280907.htm |date=17 March 2008 }}</ref> This was criticised (in a statement signed by over 40 academics) as being "extremely poor, based on contested findings and accumulated results. It is one-sided and simply ignores the considerable research tradition into 'extreme' (be they violent or sexually explicit) materials within the UK's Humanities and Social Sciences".<ref>[http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/acad_statement.html Statement to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill Committee] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220215632/http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/acad_statement.html |date=20 December 2008 }} backlash</ref>

The law has been criticised as probably breaching Articles 8 and 10 of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]].<ref>[http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/qcopinion.html backlash QC opinion] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602011041/http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/qcopinion.html |date=2 June 2008 }}</ref><ref>[http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/CJIBlords2Rbriefing21jan08.pdf "Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.)"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080723192344/http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/CJIBlords2Rbriefing21jan08.pdf |date=23 July 2008 }}</ref> The government acknowledged this, but believes "this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and [[necessary in a democratic society]] for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".<ref>{{cite web |author=House of Commons |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 |title=House of Commons – Explanatory Note |publisher=Parliament of the United Kingdom |date=2007-06-26 |access-date=2013-01-04 |archive-date=6 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170706232658/https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The Government has conflated the issue with participants being abused in the production of such images, with Martin Salter claiming the existence of [[snuff film]]s where women are raped and murdered on camera in [[Guatemala]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-10-08b.59.1 |title=Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill: 8 October 2007: House of Commons debates |publisher=TheyWorkForYou.com |access-date=2013-01-04}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/back+in+the+chain+gang/2604382 |title=Homepage - Channel 4 News |access-date=28 January 2009 |archive-date=27 June 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110627142959/http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/back+in+the+chain+gang/2604382 |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, no such examples of images have been shown to exist, and the sites referred to by the government are instead those produced in the UK and US with consenting actors (see "Sites labelled as 'extreme pornography{{'"}}, below).

The law has been criticised for criminalising images where no crime took place in their creation. In the House of Lords debates [[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]] stated, "Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to me to make sense".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-21a.1336.2 |title=Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill: 21 April 2008: House of Lords debates |publisher=TheyWorkForYou.com |access-date=2013-01-04}}</ref> The law has also been criticised for covering images of consenting adults—for example, including some forms of [[BDSM]] or [[bondage pornography]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-03-03a.873.3|title=Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill: 3 March 2008: House of Lords debates|publisher=They Work For You|access-date=20 September 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pawscave.dircon.co.uk/IML/beef.htm|title=Letter from the Chairman|date= January 2009|publisher=The Spanner Trust|access-date=20 September 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7370807.stm | work=BBC News | title=I am not doing anything wrong | date=29 April 2008 | access-date=23 May 2010}}</ref>

In 2009 the organisation Comic Shop Voice said that the law may result in the banning of certain comic books, such as ''[[Watchmen]]'', ''[[Batman: The Killing Joke]]'' and several collections of [[manga]]. They said in a statement: "Because this is a minefield for the law it then falls on the Police to enforce it, and it is their judgement that could lead to a prosecution. We COULD get to a point where the police could legitimately visit your home or workplace, and sanctioned by an un-elected magistrate or judge go through your collection and if they find any comic book that they feel will cause sexual arousal or displays extreme violence then they could arrest you."<ref>{{cite news|last=Swaine|first=Batman|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4370072/New-pornography-laws-could-make-comic-books-illegal-claim-campaigners.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090130120439/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4370072/New-pornography-laws-could-make-comic-books-illegal-claim-campaigners.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=30 January 2009|title=New pornography laws 'could make comic books illegal', say campaigners|work=The Daily Telegraph|date=29 January 2009|access-date=29 January 2009 | location=London}}</ref>

In 2010 a group of King's College London students produced a film, ''Hanging Perverts'', debating the perils and moral issues behind the law. It includes interviews with several public and political figures, such as [[Susan Miller, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer|Baroness Sue Miller]] of the Liberal Democrats, bondage photographer Ben Westwood (son of [[Vivienne Westwood]]), and people working in the industry (such as hardcore BDSM pornographic actress Masie Dee).<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1695333/ |title=Hanging Perverts (2010) |work=IMDb.com |year=2011 |access-date=24 September 2011}}</ref>

==Sites labelled as "extreme pornography"== In 2004, following Graham Coutts' murder conviction, an [[Early Day Motion]] listed websites: Necrobabes, Death by Asphyxia, and Hanging Bitches (frequented by Coutts) as examples of sites promoting necrophilia, "likely to incite people to do harm to others."<ref name="Early Day"/>

===Necrobabes=== Necrobabes was a website hosting images of women pretending to be dead.<ref>[http://www.trashcity.org/ARTICLES/DEATH.HTM Death Becomes Her] - Article in Trash City {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223246/http://www.trashcity.org/ARTICLES/DEATH.HTM |date=27 September 2007 }}</ref> The site was subtitled "erotic horror for adults". Necrobabes was included as an example of a site which relatives of Jane Longhurst (who was [[Murder of Jane Longhurst|murdered by Graham Coutts]]) thought should be banned.

Membership in Necrobabes was used as evidence in the murder trial of Patrick Anthony Russo (a musical director at a Texas church), who murdered Diane Holik in 2001. During the subsequent police investigation, it was found out that Russo had been a paying subscriber to Necrobabes. Partly because of his Necrobabes membership and other evidence found from his computer (including his browser history and web searches for "[[asphyxia|asphyx]]"), Russo was found guilty of strangling Holik<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/06/21/throttling-priest-had-internet-murder-fantasy |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013031511/http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/06/21/throttling-priest-had-internet-murder-fantasy |archive-date=13 October 2007 |title=theinquirer.net: Throttling priest had internet murder fantasy|date=21 June 2007 |url-status=unfit |access-date=26 May 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/Police-Blotter-Necrobabes.com-leads-to-murder-conviction/2100-1047_3-6192232.html |title=Police Blotter: Necrobabes.com leads to murder conviction|date=21 June 2007 |access-date=26 May 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=McCullagh |first=Declan |url=http://news.cnet.com/Police-Blotter-Necrobabes.com-leads-to-murder-conviction/2100-1047_3-6192232.html |title=Police Blotter: Necrobabes.com leads to murder conviction |work=CNET.com News |access-date=30 November 2009}}</ref> and given a life sentence.

The site owners asserted, "The material we produce is fanciful, even cartoonish in many regards; there is nothing realistic about it. Our viewers know this. Far from normalising violence, it relegates it squarely into the realm of fantasy." It stated that scenes were simulated, and no one was harmed during the making of their photo stories and videos. It claimed that contrary to the aforementioned petition, it "do[es] not encourage nor condone real-life violence against others". It stated that there was no pornography on the site, and claimed that it was exempt from the record-keeping requirements of [[Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act|18 U.S.C. § 2257]] because there were no images of actual, sexually-explicit conduct.

The site was registered with the [[Internet Content Rating Association|ICRA]], so it could be blocked by [[Microsoft]] [[Internet Explorer]]'s parental controls.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://necrobabes.com/|title=A Word about Censorship|work=Necrobabes.com|access-date=3 November 2009|archive-date=7 February 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110207193926/http://necrobabes.com/|url-status=dead}}</ref> As of December 2009, the site was unavailable.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://necrobabes.com/index1.html|title=This site is currently out of service|work=Necrobabes.com|access-date=3 November 2009|archive-date=6 July 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706234114/http://www.necrobabes.com/index1.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

====Coverage==== The Early Day Motion referred to Necrobabes as "corrupting".<ref name="Early Day">{{cite web|url=http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=25923&SESSION=682|title=Early day motion 583|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=20 September 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160414073452/http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/583|archive-date=14 April 2016}}</ref> ''[[The Guardian]]'' suggested that the worst still from [[Alfred Hitchcock|Hitchcock's]] ''[[Frenzy]]'' "is easily the equal of any Necrobabes gore".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/aug/31/seenoevil|title=Comment is free: See no evil|author=Frank Fisher|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=20 September 2015|date=2006-08-31}}</ref> The site has been covered in US media, which agree that the site is fantasy with consenting models.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/34/24/lead.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050829012047/http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/34/24/lead.html|title=SFBG S.F. Life - March 15, 2000 - feature|archive-date=29 August 2005|work=sfbg.com|access-date=20 September 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1014333/throttling-priest-had-internet-murder-fantasy|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121007020916/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1014333/throttling-priest-had-internet-murder-fantasy|url-status=unfit|archive-date=7 October 2012|title=Throttling priest had internet murder fantasy|work=theinquirer.net|access-date=20 September 2015|date=2007-06-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/Police+Blotter+Necrobabes.com+leads+to+murder+conviction/2100-1047_3-6192232.html |title=Police Blotter: Necrobabes.com leads to murder conviction|publisher=CNET News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714182222/http://news.cnet.com/Police+Blotter+Necrobabes.com+leads+to+murder+conviction/2100-1047_3-6192232.html |archive-date=14 July 2014 }}</ref>

====Legality==== Necrobabes was hosted in the United States and was online since 1997. The UK Government attempted (without success) to get US authorities to shut down such sites.<ref>[http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/03/week_1/07_terror.html C4 News - Home - Anti-terrorism - Blunkett meets Ashcroft<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080503105150/http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/03/week_1/07_terror.html |date=3 May 2008 }}</ref> Such images are legal in the US, and it has been claimed they would be difficult to ban without violating the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]].<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/mar/09/usnews.internationalnews | work=The Guardian| location=London | title=US and UK crack down on web porn | date=9 March 2004 | access-date=23 May 2010}}</ref>

===Hanging Bitches=== Hangingbitches.com was a website run by Frans van der Hulst. The site was shut down, but van der Hulst has since opened more sites. The images are produced in the United Kingdom with British models who have been shown alive and unharmed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/revealed-the-ultraviolent-sex-movies-being-made-in-milton-keynes-6660700.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080128135845/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23434300-details/Revealed%3A+The+ultra-violent+sex+movies+being+made+in+Milton+Keynes/article.do|url-status=live|archive-date=28 January 2008|title=Revealed: The ultra-violent sex movies being made in Milton Keynes|date=26 January 2008|work=Evening Standard|access-date=20 September 2015}}</ref>

==Organisations== Backlash launched a campaign in 2005 to challenge the joint UK Home Office and Scottish Government's proposals to criminalize simple possession of material. The [[Consenting Adult Action Network]] is a grass-roots network which opposes the law, and has organised protests against the law.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7682319.stm |title=Porn protesters hit Westminster |access-date=19 November 2008 |publisher=BBC News |date=21 October 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-bondage-protest-set-to-spice-up-the-commons-967685.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081221172115/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-bondage-protest-set-to-spice-up-the-commons-967685.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=21 December 2008 |title=Bondage protest set to spice up the Commons |access-date=19 November 2008 |work=The Independent |date=21 October 2008 |first=Henry |last=Deedes | location=London}}</ref>

==See also== {{portal|Erotica and pornography}} * [[Anti-pornography movement]] * [[Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014]] * [[Censorship in the United Kingdom]] * [[Operation Spanner]] * [[Pornography in the United Kingdom]] * [[Right to pornography]] * {{Annotated link|R v Walker|''R v Walker''}}

==References== {{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading== * {{cite book|title=The Rise of Extreme Porn: Legal and Criminological Perspectives on Extreme Pornography in England and Wales|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9gUhDgAAQBAJ|first1=Alexandros K.|last1=Antoniou|first2=Dimitris|last2=Akrivos|publisher=Springer|date=2017|isbn=9783319489711}}

==External links== * [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040506/debtext/40506-09.htm House of Commons debate on 6 May 2004] * [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040518/halltext/40518h01.htm House of Commons debate on 18 May 2004] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20060902114812/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/ Summary of responses to the Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material] * [https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_08_05_porn_doc.pdf Government consultation] *{{cite news |title=When does kinky porn become illegal? |last=Summers |first=Chris |date=29 April 2008 |newspaper=BBC News |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm}}

{{British pornography}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Section 63 Of The Criminal Justice And Immigration Act 2008}} [[Category:Animal pornography]] [[Category:Censorship in the United Kingdom]] [[Category:Internet censorship in the United Kingdom]] [[Category:Obscenity law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2008]] [[Category:United Kingdom pornography law]]