Proposed offence
The proposed offence is drafted in the
following terms (clause 261, page 67)):
It is an offence for a person to be in
possession of an image if—
a. the image is pornographic,
within the meaning of section
63 (i.e. that “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”),
b. the image portrays, in an explicit
and realistic way, a person
strangling or suffocating
another person, and
c. a reasonable person looking at
the image would think that the
persons were real.
Neither “strangling” nor “suffocating” is defined.
@JenJen I've been pondering this, whether, in respect of a sketch, the viewer might reasonably think that the people depicted in the image were "real".
The main impetus for the legislation was strangulation / suffocation actual human pornography, and the perception that this is causing men and boys to pressurise women and girls into being strangled / suffocated as part of sex.
So I still am doubtful, but I can see how someone might make an argument, depending on the art work in question.