UK Law for Ballbusting

Hi all,

Are any community members based in the UK worried about Section 63 of the 2008 Justice and Immigration Act? It applies to possession of images which portray:

"7. An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a)an act which threatens a person's life,

(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,

(c)an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real."

The full text is here, and it applies whether consent was given or not, and whether the act was staged or not. By my reading of this possession of ballbusting images or movies by someone based in the UK breaks this law, and I'm curious what you all think. Is there a way around it for UK-based community members?

Cheers,

Tom
Probably creating the least sexy thread this forum has ever seen

As an artist of ball busting, this Act concerned me. Research into its implications showed that images have to be photos, not illustrations, to fall within the Acts realm. Time has shown that the law is not being applied, as a glance at sites like Fetlife show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThomHow

Hi all,

Are any community members based in the UK worried about Section 63 of the 2008 Justice and Immigration Act? It applies to possession of images which portray:

"7. An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a)an act which threatens a person's life,

(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,

(c)an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real."

The full text is here, and it applies whether consent was given or not, and whether the act was staged or not. By my reading of this possession of ballbusting images or movies by someone based in the UK breaks this law, and I'm curious what you all think. Is there a way around it for UK-based community members?

Cheers,

Tom
Probably creating the least sexy thread this forum has ever seen

---

It seems to me that this legislation could be misused in far too many ways; too many terms are not properly defined and the exceptions are sickening.
Why on earth partial copies of material you can legally watch in a cinema or on public TV can cause you to end up as a criminal, is just discombobulating.
A sledge hammer to crack a walnut!

What to do in the UK?
IMHO, don’t own anything that could be considered an infringement!
That includes photos saved from the net a decade ago and forgotten about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try

As an artist of ball busting, this Act concerned me. Research into its implications showed that images have to be photos, not illustrations, to fall within the Acts realm. Time has shown that the law is not being applied, as a glance at sites like Fetlife show.

---

Illustrations don't seem to be the focus of prosecutions, but to quote from Wikipedia:

---

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."

---

There tend to be more than 1000 prosecutions per year under the section, but it's worth noting that the majority of these involve clause 7d) on oral sex with animals. I couldn't see the breakdown for every year, but it looked like from 2009-2012 there were around 260 prosecutions on 7b) that could apply to ballbusting. So it is being applied to some cases, but probably enforcing it isn't as big a priority to the police as other crimes.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alec Anaconda, A1

It seems to me that this legislation could be misused in far too many ways; too many terms are not properly defined and the exceptions are sickening.
Why on earth partial copies of material you can legally watch in a cinema or on public TV can cause you to end up as a criminal, is just discombobulating.
A sledge hammer to crack a walnut!

---

Agreed. It seems mad that a partial copy of a film legally produced and distributed could get you in prison under this act. It also makes no sense, as the House of Lords commented, that an image of an act you consensually took part in could get you charged, but taking part in the act itself would not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alec Anaconda, A1

What to do in the UK? IMHO, don’t own anything that could be considered an infringement!

---

*Sigh* You are probably right.

Tom

Interesting. I don't know of anyone on Fetlife whose been prosecuted, and a lot of photos and videos are posted there that, well, I'd be surprised if injury, at least temporary, didn't result.