Is Pornograhpy Illegal in the UK?

Over in the US, we see a lot of UK based TV shows, and while they are usually very well made, there seems to be a constant thread of very heavy drinking and sex. In respect of sex, the content is even more graphic and commonplace than similar US shows, and that's saying something.

I had however heard, that hardcore pornography is still officially outlawed in the UK both for import and sale - the only European nation to have such strict laws outside of Muslim nations such as Turkey.

So is it true, is the UK still officially pornless, because if you are, it seems to be very much against your current national character.

Whew, this out of the blue. (No pun intended )

You heard this from where, exactly? A source would be helpful. To my knowledge there is no such ban, though I must confess I'm not a lawyer/porn expert . Maybe try searching on Google or something.

And could you please elaborate on how a TV show you saw makes you think the UK's national character involves hardcore pornography? I'm pretty interested to see how that works. Be specific, too: Which show(s) do you have in mind?

[edit on 30/9/07 by Ste2652]

Aha, I found it using my favorite resource, namely Wikipedia, it seems it was illegal until 1999:

link:

en.wikipedia.org...

In England and Wales, the main legislation on pornographic materials is contained in the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the Obscene Publications Act 1964 and the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981. Video-orientated depictions of hardcore material (with certain exceptions for works considered primarily 'artistic' rather than pornographic) were illegal until 1999, when trade-barrier difficulties with regards to European Community membership ensured the relatively free movement of such goods for personal importation only. R18-rated videos are only available in licensed sex shops, but hardcore pornographic magazines are available in newsagents' (shops selling newspapers, magazines, confectionary, et cetera). Purely textual pornography has not been prosecuted since the Inside Linda Lovelace trial of 1976. The Home Office plans to introduce legislation to criminalise possession of what it has labelled extreme pornography.

reply to post by Retseh


Retseh Q. Is Pornography Illegal In the UK?

A. I don't know.

For casual conversation over here, it is sufficient to say YES to pornography and NO to obscenity. That is, YES it's OK, and NO, it's not OK.

Historical Reference. To the lay public, [Associate Justice Potter] Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." From Wikipedia.

Generally speaking, pornography is any thing that is sexually arousing. Obscenity is depicting the sex act whether between humans or between humans and animals. Bestiality. Such conduct was proscribed in the Holy Writ’s Pentateuch. It has been in the criminal codes of most western countries, from which I presume it must be a frequent enough happening to warrant the attention of otherwise busy lawmakers or lawgivers.

SOFT porn never shows actual sexual intercourse but it can show bouncing beds. Unlike Hustler magazine, once known for its “tits and clits” content, you get to see lots of the former but none of the latter. Nor do you get to see any male “privates” at work or at rest. Any of that is HARD core porn which may be obscene and illegal.

[edit on 10/1/2007 by donwhite]

Er, I might chime in, if I may... I have, er, a working knowledge of such things....

Firstly, there seems to different rules depending on the medium.

TV:

Erect penises are not legal. Showing the "pink" bits of a woman appear to be legal. The, er, "money shot" of a girls face (if you know what I mean) appears not to be legal...

Magazines:

I believe erect penises are still illegal, but Gay groups have been campaigning for this to be changed, for all mediums I might add. This is where there is a contradiction, as the pink bits of a woman appear to be quite legal in printed form, giving rise (pun not intended!) to claims of sexual discrimination. Showing "bodily juices" appears to be legal...

Internet:

Anything goes, it would seem.....

I'll try to search for some legal clarification.... I am only quoting personal experience from my 2 years as a single man....

Ok, well, after some searching, it would seem that most things are legal. As long as you have the right certification, anything bar extreme violence or kiddies is allowed.

It's a long time since I looked at a UK porno mag
(yeah yeah yeah, stop making your own jokes, I could care less, believe me or not I don't care ).

As Bill Hicks once memorably commented those imported magazines that did show 'more' used to have little black (or blue, IIRC the BH routine) stars or dots over the, er, 'action'.

IIRC this 'free-er' situation today has come about not because of a change in the law as such but because the Police & Judicial 'system' have had to recognise that they just cannot get the public to convict (when cases are brought before a jury) people supplying 'normal' porno.

I think much the same thing applies to video (although IIRC there is still a system of certification where some sort of control is still attempted.....but I don't think they bother trying to convict those who sidestep this for the same reasons as mentioned with the printed image)

I doubt (given the 'special' position our media seems to think TV holds and their constant 'nanny-ing'......how ironic that it is those who feel so free to 'nanny' us on matters of personal morality given their whining about Gov regulation in business and mere advice in 'societal' matters) things have changed much for TV.

But given the availability of video tape & discs why would anyone bother with censored TV?

(Funnily enough it's my own view that 'soft-core' porn is - ironically given the usual 'official attitudes' - the really unhealthy, unsavoury & nasty kind.
It's displays nothing but fake sexuality and airbrushed fake people being fakely sexual, it offers nothing but women, invariably alone, as a constantly available fantasy.

I don't believe such 'un-reality' is very healthy - or rather I might be more accurate in saying it is deeply unhealty in a small but significant number of those growing adolescent males most likely to be 'using' it.
There's nothing wrong with fantasy, of course, but if all one fixates on is the one type of fantasy I just don't think that helps some people at all)



[edit on 5-10-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

posted by sminkeypinkey
(Funnily enough it's my own view that 'soft-core' porn is - ironically given the usual 'official attitudes' - the really unhealthy, unsavory & nasty kind. It's displays nothing but fake sexuality and airbrushed fake people being fakely sexual, it offers nothing but women, invariably alone, as a constantly available fantasy.

I don't believe such 'un-reality' is very healthy - or rather I might be more accurate in saying it is deeply unhealthy in a small but significant number of those growing adolescent males most likely to be 'using' it. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, of course, but if all one fixates on is the one type of fantasy I just don't think that helps some people at all)

I suppose obscenity - as opposed to pornography which enjoys First Amendment protection here - the issue underlying my earlier reference to Justice Potter - is much akin to alcohol, sex for hire and gambling as one more vice that has afflicted the human race since time immemorial.

Although the archaeologist’s small but pudgy female image is suggested to be a goddess of fertility, that is a polite way to say she was a prostitute. So one of our earliest human artifacts recognized the oldest profession? Lesson? Tastes change over time. We now prefer sleek to sturdy.

We in America have “learned” the hard way that you cannot prevent people from drinking alcoholic beverages. Not unless you want to make every other person a cop. We do love the “War” metaphor over here. We launched a War on Crime in 1941. A War on Poverty in 1964. A War on Drugs in 1969. And in 2001 our latest, the War on Terror. So far, we have LOST all our great Wars.

Crime is unabated. 118 people have been murdered in my city of Jacksonville, FL, 800,000 people this year. 89 of those were killed by firearms. A half dozen were uninvolved casualties which we call “collateral damage” in war. (I don’t like the word “innocent” and use it only infrequently). Poverty is endemic. In fact, we have more people in a state of poverty today than we had in 1964. Hmm? Same outcome with the War on Drugs. Our civil liberties are at risk by these endless Wars. We now tolerate police serving “no knock” warrants. The police shot and killed a 92 year old woman in Atlanta who mistook them for home invaders, also popular here.

We have so-called SWAT squads who dress like Darth Vader. I HATE to see our local police dressed in dark blue camo, wearing Kevlar helmets with plastic face guards, wearing Kevlar clothing, and carrying M16s. Over here our police say they need “firepower” equal to the bandits! I hear you can buy a stolen AK47 for $500 on the “street.” A .32 caliber (7.95mm) revolver is as cheap as $25; a 12 year old boy was shot here last week with one. Yes, he died. Our CDC statistics show 28% of people who are shot, die. Whereas, the overall accident fatality rate is less than 1/10th of 1%.

The War on Drugs has destroyed the government of Columbia and threatens those in Bolivia and Mexico. The Cayman Islands and Bahamas may be under money laundry control. All poor countries in the Western Hemisphere are at risk. The outcome so far is that drugs are easier to obtain and cheaper than ever. A “rock” of crack coc aine is $5. When smoked it sends you to “paradise” for about 2 hours. Say hello OBL. Heroin and coc aine were both legal in the US until the Food and Drug Act of 1907. Then medical doctors gained a monopoly on its distribution! So say some.

My point? Wouldn’t it be “better” to license and tax the undesirable outlets for humans innate curiosity than to waste good money and brainpower on trying to do the impossible?

[edit on 10/5/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by sminkeypinkey



this topic reminds me of my school days
when the kid in my class use to steal his dads porno mag and bring it to school and rip it up and throw it around the field after looking through it (not that i did )