So, what should you be looking for?  The law specifies that all of the following elements must be present:

• The image is pornographic;
• The image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene  character
• The image portrays in an explicit and realistic way, one of the following extreme acts:

1. An act which threatens a person’s life;
2. An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus,
   breast or genitals;
3. An act involving sexual interference with a human corpse,
4. 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 the people and animals portrayed were real.

The last section does at least seem to rule out prosecutions resulting from the possession of Japanese manga, although they could well still fall foul of the new sections of the Coronors and  Justice bill.  Pictures of Russell Brand’s ex could well be a different matter.  Films rated by the BBFC are also exempt, but intriguingly, not excerpts from them.

Of course, it’s still difficult to see what extra benefit this law adds.  The Ministry of Justice has already said that no image that would be legal under the Obscene Publications Act will be covered by this legislation anyway, so why do we need additional laws?

In fact this new legislation sounds suspiciously similar to the many other pieces of new legislation produced recently.  An attempt to look tough on the tabloid-issue of the week but without actually making any real difference.  Police chiefs have already said they’re not planning on targeting people for breaking the new law, possibly wise as the last time they were asked they didn’t even seem to know what was covered.

Fortunately for our collective morals a new internet vigilante group has appeared, picking up the torch from Mary Whitehouse and promising to catch and report offenders to ISPs.  They’re planning on doing this by capturing IP addresses from bittorrent streams which they have categorised as falling foul of the act.  Of course, presumably to do that they’re going to have to watch the streams themselves first and thus fall foul of the law.  A slight problem perhaps?

Still they clearly have the moral high-ground, linking their enforcement activities to the beating to death of a suspected paedophile. Ok, to be fair, they do say they would “rather not associate ourselves with such.. unsavory (sic) people” which is clearly a ringing condemnation of their actions.

I’m sure we’re all grateful to have such a caring organisation looking out for our well-being and, if they fail, they can probably at least sell on their URL for a few quid..

Let’s start at the beginning.  Not content with producing legislation to allow citizens to be imprisoned for sizable lengths of time without charge, our current government is also determinedly bringing in new laws with which to prosecute us, even in situations where breaching the law brings no conceivable harm to anyone.

I’m referring of course to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.  This particularly ill-thought out law makes it illegal to possess certain forms of pornographic imagery, specifically that regarded as extreme.  This category appears to cover certain activities, such as consensual bondage for example, which would be perfectly legal to indulge in personally, as long as you don’t take photos for your friends.  How you find out what publications are extreme or not is also left undefined as one group discovered when they attempted to seek guidance from the police.

Ok, this aside, you may well argue that since it may well be impossible to find out whether the participants of ‘extreme pornography’ are appearing willingly or not, then it is safer to ban it all to protect unwilling participants. The effectiveness of making something illegal and preventing it happening is a debate for another time, but let’s say that you are right and move on.

As well as banning photographs of pornographic activities, the act also is apparently deemed to cover cartoon images, particularly where the participants are underage. How you are supposed to tell whether a cartoon image is responsible enough to engage in sexual activity isn’t specified. What if the figures portrayed look like schoolgirls, but are actually 10,000 year old space vampires? (a situation which I suspect isn’t that unusual in some manga comics)  Should Huey, Dewey, and Louie be protected from Donald Duck?  He does wander around without trousers after all.  In any case, unless groups of starving artists are being imprisoned and forced to draw tentacle monsters then it is difficult to see exactly who such comics are hurting.

By the way, don’t think you’re safe just because you live in the freedom loving US of A.  I suspect Christopher Handley, an Iowa manga fan, might well have thought that the first amendment covered the right to own comics right up until he was recently arrested.  Seems the the post office can open your mail and decide that it’s offensive, using powers gained under the PROTECT act.  Now he faces up to 20 years imprisonment.

But I don’t use pornography or read comics, I hear you cry.  Don’t worry, there are still ways you can get snapped up over here in the UK.  Our old friend Jacqui Smith, also wants to track all your email and phone communications.

Better hope that no-one sends you any Donald Duck cartoons…