2006-Aug-30 - Consultation Response (0)

emark's profile

Posted by emark on Sat 17 May 08, 6:28 PM

[Repost from 2006-Aug-30]

Possession of "violent" porn to be criminalised

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berks...

*http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story...

Consultation response at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extr... .

---

Good points:

*The level of "violence" has been clarified to "acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury" (before it was GBH).

*The majority of responses were against strengthening the law (241 against, 143 in favour - if we count individuals only and not organisations this rises to 223 against, 90 in favour; it's not clear if "Yes" means they are in favour of criminalising possession, or just tighter laws in other areas).

*They give serious consideration to those practicing BDSM, and it seems they really don't intend to criminalise photos of such acts (my fear was that the response would be "Well it's illegal anyway, you deserve to be locked up"). They also cover the issue of consensual versus nonconsensual several times.

Bad points:

*Depictions are still included, and it's not clearly defined. My fear is it could be claimed that an image depicts a more serious one (e.g., lots of blood suggesting someone bleeding to death).

*My understanding is that fake child porn specifically covers only "pseudo-photos" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_pseudo-pho... ), which is an image which isn't a photo at all, or a manipulated photo. I.e., an actual photo of someone made up to look like a child is, I believe, legal. So does this proposed law include only pseudo-photos, or will actual photos be included too? The consultation response makes no distinction - if the latter, this law would actually be stronger than those in place for child pornography.

*"Likely to result in serious, disabling injury" could easily include breathplay, and possibly other acts depending how "likely" is likely. It would be far better if this simply banned those images which show "serious, disabling injury" - "likely" is far too vague, and could surely cover a far wider range of acts?

*"material that has been solely or primarily produced for the purpose of sexual arousal" still seems a bit vague to me - where does the burden of proof lie? What about a photo of a BDSM scene, where the act was sexual, but there is no evidence the image is kept for this purpose? (Maybe it's just me, but I like the images I have of scenes for the happy memories - it's not like I'm going to get off on images of myself, after all...)

*Many good points made in opposition, but there is no indication of whether these criticisms will be addressed.

Even if I could be certain that such a law would never affect me, this still angers me on a more fundamental level.

*This law is not being proposed based on any actual evidence of a causation between viewing such material and turning to violence, but instead is based on a single example where someone who committed murder happened to like violent porn (even in this case, it is claimed that he was into breathplay before he used Internet porn; the Law Lords have also overturned murder conviction).

*I think it's fine for organisations to give advice in their areas of expertise, but I find it worrying that police organisations for example are giving opinions on what should be law, rather than addressing the viability, enforcements or needs of such laws. Hampshire and West Midlands Police believe bestiality should include dead animals, where as Kent Police believe that written fantasy material should be included. Why?

*Many comparisons are made to child pornography, saying it is right to criminalise images even in the absence of evidence that they cause harm. No one seems to mention that child porn is illegal because we damn well have plenty of evidence that it causes harm to the child being abused.

*Many of these arguments would apply to criminalising all porn ("it encourages rape!"), and indeed, some of those responding wanted even tighter laws. But clearly, banning porn because of a vocal minority isn't going to be accepted by most people - yet they can sneak in this law on the same shoddy arguments made by that same vocal anti-porn minority, because it only affects a minority of people.

Those last two points are demonstrated by the Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit: "Our interest has never been in 'proving' direct causal links between pornography and specific acts of sexual violence" (yeah, that a child has been abused doesn't really matter!) and "virtual ubiquity of pornography creates a cultural context which devalues women's humanity and dignity" (i.e., "all porn should be banned because it degrades women" - why is consideration being given to this point of view, unless the Government is going to seriously ban all porn?)

And remind me about a woman's humanity and dignity when one is prosecuted for viewing or possessing "violent" porn.

Edited Wed 21 May 08, 2:58 AM by emark


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent