Making Porn in Ireland

That has nothing to do with group sex being illegal if homosexual. Its about assault and the victims consent much like the case in Germany recently. Not too mention the fact that it is English and has not been tested in Ireland (against the NFOAP Act 97)

Please show how this case supports your earlier comment:

EducatedGuess wrote:

It is not against the law to produce a hetrosexual porn but is against the law to produce a homosexual [male] porn. The law as it stands in Ireland is that it is against the law for more than two consenting adult males to patricipate in a sex act.

The DPP, as the representative of the Irish Public. ie. The Guards arrest everyone involved if they find out, and you're brought to court and charged with a criminal offence. The thing about R vs Brown is that it's less about the fact that there was sex involved, and more about the fact that it was seen as a serious form of assault. (Which historically is not consentable to, as dangerous to society.) Hold on...

Stephen J said (at 549):
‘When one person is indicted for inflicting personal injury upon another, the consent of the person who sustains the injury is no defence to the person who inflicts the injury, if the injury is of such a nature, or is inflicted under such circumstances, that its infliction is injurious to the public as well as to the person injured.'

LORD JAUNCEY OF TULLICHETTLE.

The line between injuries to the infliction of which an individual could consent and injuries to whose infliction he could not consent must be drawn it was argued where the public interest required. Thus except in the case of regulated sports the public interest required that injuries should not be inflicted in public where they might give rise to a breach of the peace. Baroness Mallalieu QC, for Jaggard argued that injuries to which consent would be irrelevant were those which resulted in actual expense to the public by reason, for example, of the expenses of hospital or other medical treatment, or payment of some benefit. Such injuries would be likely to be serious and to be appropriate to a s 20 charge, whereas the consensual infliction of less serious injuries would not constitute an offence.

Unless he could class it as art... In which case it's erotica, and he's contributing to society instead! Although no tax exemptions... *sigh* Although he would be able to write off the cost of making it. And the Advertising. *ponders*

English case law is used in Ireland, [it doesn't matter if its English]. I am thinking someone hasn't studied law. 90% of Irish Law is based on English law espcially common law, after all we are a pretty young republic and its not that since we had the English system. Also the abitor dictum is also used to sway the opinion of new cases. I do understand the enforcement of such precedent would be quite an infridgement on equality, and I dont think the Gardai are too interested in consenting adults doing whatever they want to do in private, once its legal. Again I must stress that just because its not legislation does not mean its not against the law. Its all in name of art after all.

EducatedGuess wrote:

Dont forget the Life of Brian was banned here when it came out, contraception & homosexuality were against the law until recent times. Suppose its a socio/legal thing.

Its because the church had too much power for way too long! I love that film.

As for English law/common law, etc, it still does not equate to homosexual sex between more than 2 people. thats just the fact of the matter, you either quoted the wrong case or did not know the full case. r V Brown does not support the comment.

As for our use for such, common law does not apply once replaced by legislation. Case law only applies to the law under which it was tested. That case is in 1993. Ireland has produced new assault, etc law since then and the case law R V Brown has not been used or challenged in Ireland therefore you cannot accurately state it applies here.

mountainyman wrote:

There is a slight element of incongruity in chiding another poster for not having studied law while mispelling 'obiter'.

I presume it is I thats being accused of not being qualified. All Gardai are qualified in criminal law now and many have seperate qualifications (more pay).

mountainyman wrote:

Back to R v Brown, the tapes were not sold and as such the case is easily distinguished.
Remember also that Lanskey sought out young men under the age of consent (21 for homosexuals) and indeed at least one of these was 15. The law lords wanted to **** him basically and they did.

Mountain, this case has sweet FA to do with the question asked and does not support the previous statement made by my educated superior, basically I have to wonder on someones knowledge of the law and how it works and also that of Third who supported the claim.

mountainyman wrote:

On the broader question no opinion or interest but what about marital privacy if you use married actors/actresses?

Clarify please, are you suggesting that the male and female actors are married to eachother or other people and from what angle are you suggesting? (no pun)

"On the broader question no opinion or interest but what about marital privacy if you use married actors/actresses?" That is a point that never even dawned on me, and its a great one. I think your referring to the McGee v. Attorney General or privacy in general Kearney v. Ireland. Although I am sure it would make a good argument, would the fact that their private acts are being recorded then distributed to the public ruin the whole what you do in your own home theory?

Thats fine educated but you still havent explained your basis for the below quote. You used R V Brown but I dont think that can be used to back this statement:

EducatedGuess wrote:

The law as it stands in Ireland is that it is against the law for more than two consenting adult males to patricipate in a sex act.

And I also dont see why I need more than a criminal law knowledge to speak about criminal law.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Clarify please, are you suggesting that the male and female actors are married to eachother or other people and from what angle are you suggesting? (no pun)

Ideally married to each other HOWEVER I don't think marital prvacy necessarily applies ONLY to married couples. (In this day and age) *

If this were the case brought to the supreme court seeking to extend marital privacy to non married sexual relationships it would lose. But if the right had already been accepted then the right would stand and the court would be BOUND and you could sell your porno.

*But in Norris & Ireland the Supreme Court said gays don't have a right to marital privacy.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

But can you claim any form of privacy if the product is for public viewing?

I think if the couple were actually married and said that they derived erotic pleasure from the filming and distribution of the sex act you might get away with it?

MM

mountainyman wrote:

I think if the couple were actually married and said that they derived erotic pleasure from the filming and distribution of the sex act you might get away with it?

MM

Distribution destroys their claim in my opinion, if they said they enjoyed being watched by invited people and/or taping but did not intend to distribute the tape themselves, then I would say they have a legitimate case.

Educated,
Why not just admit you were wrong? No case, be it statute, common or case backs your original claim. If you want to babble about interpretation then fine but it is only your credibility that suffers.

Hardcore DVDs that are mailed to you will be seized by customs if they spot them.

DVD deliveries to Adult Shops are also regularly seized.Adult Shops are also raided every couple of months and have their DVDs seized as they are not certificated (IFCO refuses to censor them).

Adult Shops recieve a letter every few months reminding them that they may only have films on their shelves for sale if they come from certain distributors (SonyBMG,HMV,Paramount etc etc).Obviously none of these distributors supply hardcore movies.

As far as I know producing porn is illegal,the guys who made the three F**ked in Ireland movies were British and shot it in a remote area of Tír Chonaill.

I dont think the Gards were too worried about chasing them down.

The third in that series was pulled off the shelves as soon as it became known that one of the girls had been a few months short of eighteen when the film was shot.

Licenses and so on and so forth for making films?Forget about it.Get a good camera and some willing participants who are above the age of consent,get them to provide proof of their age and keep copies.get them to sign a form saying they agree to be filmed and that you can do what you want with the film afterward.Treat everyone nice,remind them their friends and family could see the movie and most people will think they are sluts/scumbags because of it.You should never make them think they can be in a film and no one will notice.

Then go to the Venus Trade Fair in Berlin in October and set sell the rights to a European company or else do some extra work with yourself and get a near finished product and set up distribution with a European company.

Thats pretty much it.If you start worrying about the ins and outs of the law you will get so bogged down in it all that you will end up doing nothing.