by obelisks » Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:02 pm
keeping_it_riel wrote:Joon wrote:Lucky Lucan wrote:spitthedog wrote:Lucky Lucan wrote:spitthedog wrote:
It's possible that any video was only for personal consumption rather than public? In which case - set up?
It doesn't matter who it was for, making pornography is against the law.
Yes, and.....
All irrelevant. I don't really give a toss if he wants to make videos of hookers, the fact is it's illegal and he's been arrested for it.
Here's the 2008 law definition of pornography and when it's an offense.
2008 Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation wrote:Article 38: Definition of Pornography
‘Pornography’ in this law shall mean a visible material such as a photograph or videotape, including a material in electronic form, depicting a genital or other similar
pornography which excites or stimulates sexual desire.
Article 39: Pornography
A person who distributes, sells, leases, displays, project or presents in public place, a pornography shall be punished with imprisonment for 7 days to 1 month and a fine of 100,000 to 200,000 riels.
A person who possesses, transports, imports, or exports a pornography for the purpose of use in commission of the above offense shall be punished the same as in the above-stated paragraph 1.
A person who produces a pornography for the purpose of use in commission of any offense stipulated in the first and second paragraphs of this article shall be punished with imprisonment for 1 month to 1 year and a fine of 200,000 to 2,000,000 riels.
First, "pornographic material" is defined very broadly. It doesn't only cover images of "genitals" but "other similar pornography" (whatever the fuck that means). So this could potentially cover ANY body parts. The key defining element though seems to be materials that "excites or stimulates sexual desire." However, if you know what is going on out there, you would know that even an unassuming body part, such as women feet, can be highly arousing for a number of men. All those women wearing revealing outfits and gowns and posting selfies on their facebook can be conflated with producing pornography.
Second, the "pornographic material" in itself is not an offense. What is a crime is to "distribute, sell, lease, display, project or present it in public place."
The production, possession, transportation, import or export of those pornographic materials become a crime if they are done with the intent of "distribution, selling, leasing, displaying, projecting or presenting them in "public place."
So DetroitMuscle's question is very valid in this to qualify the crime. The intent must be proven or the public distribution must be evidenced.
In its current dreadful wording, this law is awfully backward.
I guess the most recent legal precedent for this case would be that of
'Sleazy Gonzales' who did two months in Prey Sar for taking photos of his sex worker GF's bits and bobs. It was a murky affair.
http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/view ... hp?t=29542
Whereas this monk received one year for a similar offence.
Net Khai already received a one-year sentence last month for producing and distributing pornography in a case involving a 23-year-old victim. He is expected to face at least one further lawsuit.
https://khamerlogue.wordpress.com/tag/m ... s-in-jail/
[quote="keeping_it_riel"][quote="Joon"][quote="Lucky Lucan"][quote="spitthedog"][quote="Lucky Lucan"][quote="spitthedog"]
It's possible that any video was only for personal consumption rather than public? In which case - set up?
[/quote]
It doesn't matter who it was for, making pornography is against the law.[/quote]
Yes, and.....[/quote]
All irrelevant. I don't really give a toss if he wants to make videos of hookers, the fact is it's illegal and he's been arrested for it.[/quote]
Here's the 2008 law definition of pornography and when it's an offense.
[quote="2008 Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation"][b][u]Article 38[/u]: Definition of Pornography[/b]
‘Pornography’ in this law shall mean a visible material such as a photograph or videotape, including a material in electronic form, depicting a genital or other similar
pornography which excites or stimulates sexual desire.
[b][u]Article 39[/u]: Pornography[/b]
A person who [b]distributes[/b], [b]sells[/b], [b]leases[/b], [b]displays[/b], [b]project or presents in [u]public place[/u][/b], a pornography shall be punished with imprisonment for 7 days to 1 month and a fine of 100,000 to 200,000 riels.
A person who [b]possesses[/b], transports, imports, or exports a pornography [b]for the purpose of use in commission of the above offense[/b] shall be punished the same as in the above-stated paragraph 1.
A person who [b]produces[/b] a pornography [b]for the purpose of use in commission of any offense stipulated in the first and second paragraphs[/b] of this article shall be punished with imprisonment for 1 month to 1 year and a fine of 200,000 to 2,000,000 riels.[/quote]
First, "pornographic material" is defined very broadly. It doesn't only cover images of "genitals" but "other similar pornography" (whatever the fuck that means). So this could potentially cover ANY body parts. The key defining element though seems to be materials that "excites or stimulates sexual desire." However, if you know what is going on out there, you would know that even an unassuming body part, such as women feet, can be highly arousing for a number of men. All those women wearing revealing outfits and gowns and posting selfies on their facebook can be conflated with producing pornography.
Second, the "pornographic material" in itself is not an offense. What is a crime is to "distribute, sell, lease, display, project or present it in public place."
The production, possession, transportation, import or export of those pornographic materials become a crime if they are done with the intent of "distribution, selling, leasing, displaying, projecting or presenting them in "public place."
So DetroitMuscle's question is very valid in this to qualify the crime. The intent must be proven or the public distribution must be evidenced.
In its current dreadful wording, this law is awfully backward.[/quote]
I guess the most recent legal precedent for this case would be that of[b] 'Sleazy Gonzales' who did two months in Prey Sar for taking photos of his sex worker GF's bits and bobs.[/b] It was a murky affair.
[url]http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?t=29542[/url][/quote]
Whereas this monk received one year for a similar offence.
[quote]Net Khai already [b]received a one-year sentence[/b] last month for [b]producing and distributing pornography in a case involving a 23-year-old victim[/b]. He is expected to face at least one further lawsuit.[/quote]
https://khamerlogue.wordpress.com/tag/monk-filmed-naked-girls-in-jail/