2006-Sep-02, 2007-Mar-24 - Petitions (0)

emark's profile

Posted by emark on Sat 17 May 08, 6:35 PM

[Repost from 2006-Sep-02]

The wording of the Longhurst petition started off "We the undersigned object to the presence of extreme internet sites promoting violence against women". Well who wouldn't sign that? The proposed law meanwhile makes no requirement that the site or image is promoting violence (nor restricts it to women - Wearside Women in Need criticised the "gender neutrality" of the proposals).

Other thoughts...

*Several newspapers have said it's already illegal to make such material, but I can't find which law they are referring to. Anyone know? And given they haven't yet worked out the criteria for these images, how does it make sense to say they're already illegal to make? The consultation made it quite clear that this proposal is not an extension to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (i.e., saying that material under that would now be illegal to possess), but covers a newly defined category of material.

*Daily Mail argues against porn ban ( http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/utley.html ). Wow. Well, they do tend to be rather anti-Labour, but it's nice to see that even the paper which seems to hate "deviancy", the Internet, and porn, having this point of view.

*A slightly more balanced viewpoint from the BBC ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/al... ). It's interesting in the video that the BBC talks about images which could become illegal to possess, and then shows some on national TV (in particular, parts of a body covered in blood, albeit only showing the legs). So how does this match with the idea that it's only criminalising images which would be illegal to distribute?

*On a less serious note, the consultation defines BDSM as "Bondage, Domination, Submission and Mastery, and Sado-Masochism". I've never heard that one before? That would make the full list: Bondage and Discipline, Domination and Submission, Submission and Mastery, Sadism and Masochism - can anymore terms be fit into these wonderful 4 letters?

*I suppose I should actually write to my MP.

---

[Repost from 2007-Mar-24]

Government responds to Mediawatch's petition to criminalise possession of "extreme porn" and to extend it to a much wider range of porn.

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11331.asp

Some initial thoughts:

* They do not give a qualitative difference between the "extreme porn" which should be criminalised, and other types of images which shouldn't (Mediawatch wanted R18 porn included for example). Rather, they seem to acknowledge that this is a arbitrary distinction, and state that it is a matter of debate about "where the line should be drawn". ("consulted widely" presumably refers to when they asked misleading questions, and ignored the majority who opposed the plans...)

* They claim that this would only apply to material illegal under the Obscene Publications Act - yet this was only one option considered by the consultation, and unlike the OPA, the proposed legislation has no requirement that the material would "deprave and corrupt". (Even if it did though, I feel there are many reasons why applying a law on obscene publications to possession is very worrying.)

* Talks about a balance between freedom of expression and "protection of the public" but does not state what harm is caused to the public. Talks about being "proportionate", but does not state what "potential harm" is proportionate to a prison sentence.

* Thankfully there is no mention of the claims of porn featuring actual non-consensual violence. (There has yet to be any evidence produced of sites with non-consensual violence, and this seems to be a myth much like the "snuff films" scare. Note that this is not even an issue of "How much can someone reasonably consent to?" since extreme online sites such as Necrobabes are simulated/faked. The consent issue applies more to images of less-extreme BDSM acts, some of which may still fall under the law, e.g., breathplay.) This at least makes it clear that the issue is one of obscenity - namely that viewing an image can alledgely cause harm such that the person must be punished for doing so (much like drug laws, I guess) - and not one of protecting anyone involved in the making.

* "Countries which do not share our approach to this material and is therefore outside our jurisdiction" - I'm curious which countries do share their approach of criminalising possession of adult porn. Well, there's places like Iran and Singapore I suppose.

They have yet to respond to the petition opposing the law, though the petition creator has been informed that a response is being prepared...

Edited Sat 17 May 08, 6:37 PM by emark


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent