When is tiger porn not tiger porn? When it’s consensual sex involving dressing up like a big cat and yelling the Kellogg’s Frosties catchphrase. Uproxx reports that “Andrew Holland, a 51-year-old bus driver from the UK, says that he suffered a heart attack, was harassed, lost his job, was forced to move from his home, was unable to see his child, and was targeted by online vigilantes after being charged for violating Britain’s ‘extreme pornography laws’ a few years ago. The pornographic videos in question — which Holland stated friends sent to him as a joke — were discovered by police who had confiscated Holland’s computer because of an unrelated domestic dispute, of which he was never formally changed.” Holland was labeled a sex offender and spent six months on bail awaiting a trial for “possession of an extreme pornographic image” before authorities realized that the video in question did not feature a real animal but a man dressed in a tiger costume. It must have been a very realistic-looking costume. According to the Independent “The Crown Prosecution Service said it only recognized that it was a man when the tiger was heard on the soundtrack saying “that’s grrrrrrreat,” like Tony the Tiger from Frosties’ breakfast cereal adverts.”
Britain’s pornography laws are notoriously strict. “The offence of possession of an extreme pornographic image was introduced in 2008 and has resulted in more than 5,500 prosecutions, the majority for clips of bestiality. Ministers had predicted that there would be just 30 cases a year,” reports the Independent. “Under the law, a person can be prosecuted for possession of a pornographic image labelled ‘extreme’ if it shows necrophilia or bestiality, threatens someone’s life or could cause serious injury to anus, breasts or genitals. In addition, the law applies to ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘disgusting’ images – a highly subjective test. Jon Fuller, a spokesman for Backlash, which campaigns on matters of sexual freedom, said the issue ‘potentially criminalizes’ millions of people.”