Jump to content

Talk:Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petitions

[edit]

Should online petitions appear in the external links section? I appreciate that two are provided for balance, but their inclusion doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. Ben Whiteside 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is Porn tacked onto an Immigration act?

[edit]

If the makers presumably do not report it as obscene then uploading to the net, then who does? Doesn't police and judges have to look at the material to be offended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.6.87.55 (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning?

[edit]

Possibly, but a warning at the top, saying this may disturb some people, as it defintaly did me. Just incase someone wanders here, and they read it, and get very "grossed out" or very disturbed. Please do so—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.174.137 (talk • contribs)

What did you think an article named Extreme Pornography was going to entail? Prodster (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.. Just as Prodster says, what do you expect "Extreme pornography" to be? This is Wikipedia, not mums-world, and we try to delivery unbiased facts without compromise for the .. overly stupid .. thats what Simple Wikipedia is for. TigerTails (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this comment was left ages ago, but just to clarify, the answer is No, and this is not up for discussion, as it's Wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Every page already has a disclaimer by default, which is linked from the bottom ("Disclaimer").
I fail to understand what's so disturbing by simply talking about the topic (it's not like there are any sexual images here, unlike some Wikipedia articles) - should the Government Act itself, along with all the transcripts on Government debates, as well as everytime Liz Longhurst talks about it, also come with warnings? Mdwh (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not NPOV?

[edit]

The Jane Longhurst Trust is a charitable company which seeks to make the Internet safer and raise awareness of the harmful effects of extreme pornography. I feel that sentence is not really NPOV. Nab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.191.149 (talk) 03:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it implies extreme porn is harmful as a fact. I've removed it for now, and replaced it with text from their "Mission" on their webpage. Is that better? Mdwh 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Necrobabes, Graham Coutts, and Jane Longhurst

[edit]

It was suggested to me that the three articles Necrobabes, Graham Coutts, and Jane Longhurst be merged into this one, and I think it's a good idea, since none is that well referenced or that notable enough on its own. I'm willing to carry out the merge if everyone agrees that it's a good idea. delldot talk 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of Jane Longhurst, and the issue of extreme pornography, are each notable in their own right (e.g., each have been mentioned in multiple national media, without reference to the other). Which parts do you feel are not well referenced? I agree regarding Necrobabes, this is not particularly notable on its own right. Mdwh 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging Jane Longhurst and Graham Coutts here. The murder is notable in its own right, as is the topic of "extreme pornography" (the murder would still be notable even if the Government wasn't making these plans), and has a lot of information specific to the murder and trial that is off-topic for this article (I'm not sure if the intent was that all the information on the case be dropped, or included here?) Also I fear there is the risk of undue weight if we end up dedicated a large section of this article to the Longhurst murder.

I think a better idea would be to merge Jane Longhurst and Graham Coutts together into their own article - this is what I've seen done before when you have articles for murderer and victim, with a lot of material repeated between them.

I don't have any strong objections to merging Necrobabes here (or to an article on Jane Longhurst and Graham Coutts) as the site is only notable in this context. However, again we have the problem that there's quite a lot of material in the article - is the intention to trim the information, of have it all in this article? Mdwh 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense to me. What do others think of merging Jane Longhurst into Graham Coutts and merging Necrobabes here? delldot talk 00:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the question of the quite a lot of info, I'd say keep whatever we can reference and get rid of whatever we can't. I don't think it will be too terribly long even if we keep it all. About necrobabes, I'd suggest merging it here rather than to the Coutts article since there was another death having to do with that site. delldot talk 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a couple days and no other discussion, so I think I'll go ahead with the merges. delldot talk 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

(from Talk:Necrobabes, history still there)

I was hoping that I'd explained this well enough in the article - it clearly asserts: "the website has achieved notability in the United Kingdom in an attempt to criminalise possession of what the Government has termed extreme pornography."

The website alone originally probably didn't satisfy notability, but it has as a result of recent political debate in the United Kingdom, and has been cited in multiple mainstream media articles (some of which I've linked - I can happily provide more), as well as being mentioned in several debates in the House of Commons (already linked). (Please believe me that my intent here is not to get advertising for some website ;) - my focus is that of this controversy which has sprung up in the UK surrounding the website.)

At the least, I believe this needs to be discussed in an AfD (or here in Talk, first), and is not a suitable candidate for Speedy Delete. Mdwh 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll see what people say then. It's a bit of a difficult issue as the notability is not so much the website content directly, but the controversy surrounding it and attempts to ban it (e.g., being the subject of a campaign and Parliamentary debates); accordingly the article focuses on this, rather than the content in general. I don't know if the information would be better off in another existing article, or in an article of a different name. Mdwh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanner case

[edit]

Just FYI ;-): In the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007, the Government cited the Spanner case (Brown [1994] 1 AC 212) as justification for criminalising images of consensual acts, as part of its proposed criminalisation of possession of "extreme pornography". ref House of Commons:Criminal Justice And Immigration Bill ref .--Nemissimo (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view?

[edit]

As stated in the lead, this is an article about the political issue in the UK, so I'm not sure what is being asked for by a worldwide view? I don't know if the editor means non-UK details of "extreme pornography" in general - but that term is not well-defined (and very hard to define - obviously "extreme" is highly POV), and I feel it's better that this article should stick to the issue of the proposed law in the UK. Mdwh (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though we could look to see if any other countries follow suit. (Hypnosadist) 12:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended Consequences

[edit]

A straightforward reading of the law implies that unprotected intercourse is "Extreme Pornography", since either participant might have HIV, which would certainly put the life of the other participant at risk. Since HIV tests aren't perfect, even that doesn't eliminate the risk.

But it would take quite a bit of care to explain that this is a poorly thought out law in a NPOV way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.141.50 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, because this law is extremely badly thought out. Can anyone clarify whether this will also affect drawn images, cos i think lovers of H anime might be a bit upset about this as well. SirEelBiscuits (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images have to be "realistic" - so whilst acted/staged scenes are included, it won't cover drawings/cartoons/etc. Mdwh (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this law passed yet?

[edit]

Can someone tell me if this is law yet? The article talks in terms of future tense, suggesting that the law hasn't been instigated yet and therefore 'extreme pornography' is not yet illegal in the UK. Can anyone confirm this? If so, has parliament announced WHEN the law will be passed, etc? Thanks J, April 15 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.49.155 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not yet law - it is currently being debated in the House of Lords. It looks like either the extreme porn clauses will go through as stated, unless there is support for two proposed amendments to either remove the clauses altogether, or to restrict them to images that are both illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act and are of actual sexual offences (see http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=630 for the latest details).
The Government have stated that they want the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (either with or without the extreme porn clauses) to be law by May 8, suggesting that there won't be the usual "ping-pong" of debates between the two houses, and so it seems this will be decided one way or another in the next couple of weeks. Mdwh (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

What kind of photograph is requested? If it's a photograph of "extreme porn" similar to how we have photos for say hardcore pornography, then I think that would be difficult - this article isn't about a pornographic classification (in the sense of softcore, hardcore, etc), it's about a legal classification, and what legally constitutes "extreme" could cover a range of different types and styles of porn, so it would be difficult to find a "representative" image. Also it's unknown what sort of images will come under it until there are any court cases - until then, it's just speculation. Mdwh (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was requested by a persistant vandal/troll who spends his time going around typically adding unnecessary photo requests, wikiproject headers with at best a tenuous link to the subject, and other irrelevant headers. On rare occasions, his judgement is correct, but I usuually revert his changes on sight. Astronaut (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the choice of this article name is a bit pov

[edit]

I mean, this isn't the uk wikipedia, this is the wikipedia in english, and it's not about extreme pornography or about terminology in uk law, it's about uk law; so do as a favor and call it law in the uk concerning pornography or something similar because now it's obvious it tries to downplay the fact uk is puritanic in porn. --Leladax (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term is POV for various reasons. The problem with naming is that there is no established term for the category, other than that covered by the law. OTOH, I disagree that UK specific articles have to have "UK" in the title. How about Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008? This would clearly relate to the UK law, and not cause confusion with a concept of "extreme" pornography in general. This also allows us more flexibility if another country were to use the term, but for a different law.
The article was started long before the law was passed, so back then there wasn't a law to use in the article name - now that the law is passed, I think it's probably best to do this. Comments? Mdwh (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, so I will go ahead with Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, for the reasons given above. This is the accurate objective term to use for an article on this law; it avoids POV issues over the term, and confusion over what the scope of the article is about. I also note that in the past, we've had comments/edits from people wondering why this only covers the UK law, or suggesting that this should be covered to "extreme porn" in general, which isn't a good idea in my opinion as there is no objective classification of what the phrase covers, other than as used in this law. The page appears to be protected, so I need to request it. Mdwh (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme pornography → Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 — This is an article about Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and hence this name best reflects that. When the article was first created, the law had yet to be passed, so we were unable to use such a naming scheme, and instead used one of the Government's term, but this has obvious POV issues, as well as a risk of being conflated with "extreme" in a more general sense, as opposed to specifically about this law. As far as I can tell, the general trend for covering specific laws on Wikipedia is to name them by the law and/or section in question (e.g., Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act). Also see discussion above. Note that we already have the article Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, so this name would be a natural name for a spin off from the sub-section in that article. Mdwh (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you demonstrate that this is the WP:COMMONNAME? The article appears to be about the concept introduced in the legislation, not the legislation itself?--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Labattblueboy here - the article is about the specific concept rather than the legislation. Just stick a further disambiguation note at the top. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "concept" is this? The article is solely about the law - the history, what it covers, arguments for and against. And my intention would be to reword any that doesn't fit into it - e.g., obviously the lead starts off the "extreme pornography ...", but this would be reworded, as I believe that would be clearer, and fit in better with what the article is about. This article has only ever been intended to cover the law - the fact that people read it as being about a more general concept is even more of an argument to be clearer in the title, and the lead. There is no common name, but there is an actual objective name for the law. Mdwh (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that even with things like child pornography, where there plenty to discuss on the general concept, we still have articles for the specific laws, and we title those articles by the law (e.g., Protection of Children Act 1978). I have no objection to keeping this as an article for a general concept, and starting a new article specifically for Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 if people think that's better (though to be honest, I can't help thinking that most material here would be moved, and there wouldn't be much to say on a general concept, as we only cover the UK in this article). Note that this isn't like terms such as softcore, hardcore, or indeed child porn, where there is a generally well defined category or concept described by the term (whilst people might colloquially refer to something being "extreme" porn, this is just the dictionary meaning of "extreme" and there is no category or concept; and such usages are not the specific UK legal definition that this article is intended to cover). Mdwh (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this article is extremely biased, since it only deals with the UK. The intro states clearly what is covered in the article, which is not the general concept of "extreme porn". The article frequently refers to the "Government", which means nothing unless it is quantified, and the intro quantifies it as being the UK. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The article is about the specific UK legislation, not "Extreme pornography" in general, and its title should reflect this. Tevildo (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There was no commonly used existing phrase of "Extreme pornography" before this legislation introduced it. If someone were to supply sources that pre-dated the legislation then I would reconsider. At the moment a simple GOOGLETEST demonstrates that the most common use of this phrase is precisely to describe this legislation. Ash (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should this not be a "support" opinion, then? This is the nominator's (and my) position. Tevildo (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, as the term is used by the press and blogosphere to refer to the legislation. As a test I just searched LexisNexis for mainstream press headlines with "Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act", I got zero matches, when I searched for "Extreme Pornography" I got six matches, all relating to this legislation. Seems fairly convincing evidence in reliable sources for common usage. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia using English suitable for the layman, not a lawyer. COMMONNAME advises that "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, ...", nobody has suggested a reason to make an exception to the guidance for this article. Ash (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is about a law. When people use the phrase "extreme pornography," they are presumably not referring to the actual law (as in "I would like to look up the date extreme pornography was approved in Parliament" or even "I would like to look up the ramifications of extreme pornography"); they're presumably referring to a concept closely associated with this law. If "extreme pornography" is not a name for the law itself (the way that Jessica's Law or the PATRIOT Act are names for laws), then the guideline you're referring to doesn't apply as precisely as you're suggesting it does. (That being said, a better title for the article might be Extreme pornography law or something similar, since its official designation does seem to be rather obscure.) Propaniac (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the current name is simpler and clearer, and I don't think it's ambiguous - as Ash notes, the term 'extreme pornography' is generally used with reference to this law. In addition, the article discusses proposals for a similar law in Scotland, which if the article was renamed would have to be moved elsewhere, since they relate to 'extreme pornography' but not, strictly speaking, to this law. Robofish (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After article rename, a new article called Extreme Pornography can be created for the non Section 63 context. Atom (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article's scope seems to be limited to this legislation. (And count me as bewildered by the "oppose" votes that seem to use the same reasoning.) Propaniac (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo

[edit]

Is there any chance of someone somehow getting hold of the specific images which this fellow was prosecuted for holding: [1]

Rationale for inclusion:

1. It would illustrate the exact type of images the law refers to.
2. Wikipedia is not censored

I would have a go but I'm a UK resident so it would make me liable for prosecution myself. Would these images be illegal to be held in Florida?

80.225.145.141 (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US has no similar law, but animal images might be at risk under their obscenity laws? Note that there are many kind of images covered by this - examples of the "consensual human" cases might be of greater interest. But right now, even textual descriptions of these images are hard to come by. In cases where people have been found guilty, I imagine the police have destroyed any equipment with the images on.
Also of interest might be the images where this law was used, but where the cases were dropped (to show the broad application of the law) (most notably, the "tiger" cartoon case, and the same guy who was also charged for images involving some kind of genital "mutilation" clip), but even there, I don't know of anyone who has managed to obtain these images. Mdwh (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps added back with appropriate edits

[edit]

I removed the two following para's from the opening, as in the first sentance (a) and (b) have no context, and in the second sentance "As a specific technical term" also has no context (i.e. I have no idea which or what "specific technical term" is being discussed).


"Where (a) or (b) apply, the maximum sentence is 3 years; otherwise the maximum is 2 years. Adults sentenced to at least two years will be placed on the Violent and Sex Offender Register."
"As a specific technical term, it appears to have been introduced in England following the death of Jane Longhurst in 2003 caused by Graham Coutts who was obsessed with such depictions downloaded from web sites dedicated to such content."


Jasonfward (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Law

[edit]

If this article (and I've seen the dicussion above about naming) is indeed about "Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008" and not the wider context of "extreme porn" (whatever that maybe) then the section on Scotland needs to be moved to a new article. Or the article needs to be renamed to create a winder context. Jasonfward (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They share enough similarities in the wording of the law, and the history, that it seems reasonable to cover it. I've no objection to someone splitting it off to a new article of course - just that I don't think it's wrong to include it here for now (there's no rule that says Wikipedia articles can't mention anything that doesn't fit exactly and directly under the article title - after all, we mention things like Jane Longhurst and Necrobabes here too, because of their relation to the law, even though they aren't directly part of what the Act says). Mdwh (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a mess

[edit]

This article cannot make it's mind up, and one hand appears to be a critique on "Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008" and some subsequent prisecutions under that, in other parts it is about "extreme pornography" mentioning various laws and rights in the US in particular.

It's also disorganised in that the various elements of the article are not kept consise and easy to follow the section labeled "Sites labelled as "extreme pornography"" opens "Examples of Internet sites accessed by Graham Coutts..." yet there have been six intervening paragraphs and an entirely new section since Graham Coutts was last mentioned, and as the article is not about Graham Coutts, who Graham Couts is has lost its context.


Whilst I think the article mostly well researched, and on an important area that deserves to be documented here on Wikipedia, the article itself requires a serious overhaul and the article, or perhaps more need to make their minds up about what they are about. i.e. the UK law, all laws in this area, or the whole arena of what may be termed "extreme pornography" of which the laws are somewhat incidental. Jasonfward (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is meant to be about the two recent UK laws (and primarily Section 63). There are no other similar laws, or other usage of "extreme pornography" that I am aware of (other than simply people referring to "extreme" pornography in the dictionary sense of the word, which isn't the sort of thing for an encyclopedia article, I feel).
Which parts are you referring to that are about "extreme pornography" not in the sense of this law? Note that sites like Necrobabes, despite being in the US, are mentioned here because they were referred to by the UK Government. I think that's still important in the context of the history of the law. The article says "Such images are legal in the US, and it has been claimed they would be hard to ban without violating the First Amendment.", but I think that is important context for the point that the UK Government couldn't get the sites shut down, due to them being legal. Is there more coverage of US law that isn't on topic?
I agree that some of the organisation could be improved - this is probably a consequence of the article evolving during the passage of the law, but with lots of it not being updated accordingly. I've made a couple of changes, I'll try to have a better look later on. Mdwh (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"please read ref - the judge returned not guilty in 1st case after prosecution offered by evidence, no indication that this was put to a jury; added clarification (for 2nd case, charges were dropped)" says "Mdwh"
The article itself needs to be internally consistent, neither I nor anyone else should need to read the reference in order to understand the article itself Jasonfward (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You don't need to read the reference, as the Wikipedia text explains to the reader. But you were trying to change the Wikipedia text in a way that wasn't consistent with the ref (as an editor, yes you should read the references!) I'm not sure what that edit has to do with your earlier points about being internally consistent - I address your comment above, so I would need to see your response to my points, to respond further. Mdwh (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a seperate article about illegal or extreme porn? why not widen the scope to international regulation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.6.87.55 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Coutts: proposed renaming

[edit]

I have proposed the Graham Coutts article be renamed Murder of Jane Longhurst — see Talk:Graham Coutts for details. --A bit iffy (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Classified works" definition

[edit]

The first section declares that "Classified works are exempt, but an extract from a classified work (if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal) would not be exempt." The term obviously has meaning in the law, but is not defined in the Wikipedia. Would it not be useful to explain here that these are films classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), as stated at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an08? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Thanks! Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Violent pornography" should not be this page.

[edit]

Currently, violent pornography redirects to this page. Wouldn't it be better to instead use a disambiguation hatnote on a page about violent pornography? Nuke (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of UK's 7/15/2019 Age Check Policy?

[edit]

There's no discussion of the UK's new Age-Check requirements (implemented on July 15th, 2019 ?), as outlined in the BBC news story at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47960775 2601:8A:C100:84CC:4194:B0C4:FEC5:C0 (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. The Digital Economy Act 2017 allows the BBFC to take action against commercial pornographic websites which do not implement an age verification system for their users, but no far no system for this has been put in place. The difficulty with regard to this article is that I have found no sources concerning the approach that is intended when commercial pornographic websites contain content for which the BBFC cannot award a certificate. The pornography covered by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is, of course, illegal to possess in the UK and would be unlikely to satisfy the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014. It may be that the BBFC will ask ISPs to block such websites even if they age-verify themselves, but I am not aware of any statement that the BBFC have made on the matter. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Extreme porn" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Extreme porn and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#Extreme porn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Extreme pornography" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Extreme pornography and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#Extreme pornography until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Section_63_of_the_Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008&oldid=1210293118"