UK prosecutors drop 'tiger' sex video case

Very Good Question!

That's a very good question!

From the extreme porn law, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008:-

"(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."

From the cartoon porn law, Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009:-

"(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."

Well, well, they're identical!

That would seem to suggest (but IANAL) that whatever pornographic "loopholes" exist for one would tend to exist for the other.

This makes me very happy. Not because I want to possess cartoon child porn, but because I oppose these insane laws on sound civil liberties grounds. It's delicious to see them begin to fail so soon.

CGI Porn

Unless you have professional-level software and skills, there are all sorts of possible clues for somebody who has a little experience to pick out. There's a lot of CGI porn out there, and if you don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by a shock reaction, you can spot the giveaway details

They wouldn't want me on a jury.

In this case, the tiger has fur, and that's hard to make look real. The light acts differently, and the outer surface moves differenty to skin. And I'd bet the woman was faked too, It's possible I'd recognise the CGI model.

In this case, I wouldn't want to rely on the sound track as a defence. But I can't see how the Police could have NOT passed the soundtrack to the CPS with the video, without altering the evidence. Oh dear, lawyers don't like that. And this could mess up everything they're investigating on the computer.

Most Probably Not, But Goatse Might

Nothing happens in 2girls1cup that comes under any of the following in subsection (7) of Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008:-

"(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."

2girls1cup is almost certainly safe (but IANAL).

In contrast, goatse might be found to portray "an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus". So if it also counts as "pornographic" and "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", then goatse would count as extreme porn.

But extreme foot fetish porn, featuring the smashing of feet with a sledge hammer, would still be legal to possess, as long as the smashing of the feet doesn't constitute "an act which threatens a person’s life".

Also legal to possess would be those images which don't appear to be pornographic, but which would be sexually arousing to those with relevant fetishes (but be careful about the context you keep such images in, since that can be used as evidence that such images are "pornographic"). So if you've got a decapitation fetish, you could legally possess images of people being decapitated, or who have been decapitated, as long as those images would appear non-pornographic to most people. But to the decapitation fetishist, such images might be the most delicious porn.

That, of course, is a massive failure in this extreme porn law - it only criminalises possession of images that are ordinary enough in their pornographic nature for ordinary juries to recognise as "pornographic"!