Depraved

Surtei Depravedteen A Naked Szh Ochrana Udajov Php Depraved 'Spanking Model Speaks' - Adele Haze's Spanking Blog

Surtei Depravedteen A Naked Szh Ochrana Udajov Php Depraved

searcha Udajov ssearch Php s Php ysearchw Surtei % Depravedteen 0 Php a Php %2 Naked g Php Dsearchd Naked s Php usearch. Udajov nfsearch Ochrana searchh Ochrana av Surtei e Php rsearchh Depravedteen sesearchrhe Ntwo%20fat%20girl%20sexyke Udajov nsearchear Depravedteen h Surtei D Depravedteen pa Depravedteen e Szh teadiscuz.infon Ochrana S searchh Surtei usearchif Ochrana r Szh %2 Naked s Naked xyuadiscuz.info Ochrana a Ochrana radiscuz.infotsearchrsearchssearchosearchssearcht Naked asearchtai Ochrana ea Udajov o Surtei t Udajov t Surtei e Php posearchssearchbsearchlsearcht Naked etwo%20fat%20girl%20sexy.

Reading up on #ObscenityTrial and wishing I was a criminal law academic. Lack of BDSM cases in corporate finance law. – @lawvaughan

This made me smile with sympathy. Imagine my frustration, as a law post-grad, at needing to concentrate on the fair trial cases when in the very next chapter, in the privacy chapter, there was an amazing wealth of things I could read about the Spanner case.

And speaking of the Spanner case:

With the good result in #ObscenityTrial, is our culture now ready to reverse R v Brown? – @rebellionkid

A pertinent question, and one very much of interest to us in the spanking scene. It is, I think, telling that nobody was prosecuted for the acts in Peacock’s DVDs, even though to an uninformed observer they look comparable to the acts in Spanner. (Here, pumping the testicles with saline. There, nailing testicles to a board. From my non-testicle-wearing point of view, these are beasts from the same species, if not necessarily the same genus.) Don’t get too excited, though, because according to Myles Jackman aka @obscenitylawyer, quoted in “Solicitors Journal”, the Law Commission “wasn’t able to say whether it would undertake a review of sexual consent to assault laws”. And why would it, when it doesn’t have to? Imagine trying to sell that change in the law to the Daily Fail readers, without the iron-clad excuse of “the jury made us do it”.

While the Peacock case isn’t precedent-setting, in the world of laws regulating porn a change now seems inevitable. Without wishing to create a hierarchy of fetishes wherein one thing is pervier than the next, fisting, ball-busting and watersports are pretty niche. If they can’t bring a guilty verdict, it doesn’t leave much for the vice officers to rely on for their bread-and-butter obscenity convictions. The Guardian believes The Obscene Publications Act “to be on its last legs”, and the Solicitors Journal piece mentioned above promises a review of enforcement guidance.

Now, is this all cause for celebration?

For Michael Peacock, undoubtedly. For porn producers, quite possibly, because, in the words of Jane Fae, “it is fear of prosecution that keeps many film-makers in check and, with the OPA now looking very much “busted flush” – the end, and possibly a new beginning, are very much on the cards.” We in the BDSM scene bubble may well celebrate with them – for a while. Don’t forget, though, the new “extreme porn” law, which is alive, well, and according to the same article by Jane Fae, is responsible for around 1000 prosecutions a year: “this represents a big shift in legal thinking, away from the idea that the publisher, as part of a business enterprise, is likely to be better advised legally and so more responsible for what he or she produces, and toward the consumer, for whom no excuse (including accidental downloading of material) will now suffice.” The consumer: this would be any of you, I’m afraid. I know you wouldn’t knowingly download any extreme porn, but the warm and righteous feeling of being innocent is not much consolation when your boss rings you up because she saw your name in the newspaper, but she can’t get through because you’re on the phone to BastardLoanSharks.com trying to find the cash to cover solicitors’ fees.

You may have noticed that up until now I haven’t mentioned that Peacock’s DVDs featured, only and specifically, acts between gay men. Regardless of the equality laws – and without wanting to make assumptions about the personal prejudices of the jury – one could be excused for thinking that this could have turned out badly for Peacock, just like it had for Brown et al in Spanner. But you know what, I think in this specific instance the all-male cast has probably saved the defence’s case.

Take this précis of the summing up:

Prosecution: “This man is in a great deal of pain. Look at his gaping anus. The scene depicts rape. This is obscene.” Defence: “This man is an actor performing in a fantasy.” Jury: “Not guilty.” (Based on live tweets from the courtroom by @lexingtondymock and @NichiHodgson).

I would argue that if the questioned acts had been visited upon women, this defence wouldn’t have necessarily flown: from my observations, men are seen as more capable of consenting to violent acts, inflicted by either men or women. Far from being hobbled by homophobia, Peacock has inadvertently and unconsciously benefited from the absence of the patronising overprotective attitude towards female actors.

But that’s just guesswork and grumbling. What we do have is a non-guilty verdict for an innocent man, and a hint of positive legal change in the air. A great day for lawyers and pornographers alike. Do let’s enjoy it in our scene bubble.

And yet: remember Spanner. Remember the standard of proof required in “extreme porn” cases. Don’t grow complacent, because they fucking won’t.