 |
IC : Weblogs : emark : "Aren't there better things to worry about?"
Aren't there better things to worry about? (7)
emark's profile
Posted by emark on Tue 27 Jan 09, 12:56 AM
It's something I've heard a few times recently - whether by supporters of the "extreme" porn law, or perhaps those who don't care either way. Even among those of us who oppose, it's hard to avoid the nagging self-doubt. We feel we have to be careful with our words, perhaps prefacing our statements with "I know there are more important things, but -". I did it myself when posting about this weekend's CAAN protest.
Well indeed, there are worse things in the world. There always are - any political issue can be trumped by something else. Should we not oppose anything the UK Government does, because none of them are as bad as atrocities around the world? There is also no reason why people can't oppose more than one thing - there's an implied suggestion that opposing this law means one doesn't care about other issues, but there's no evidence or reason to suggest they are less likely to care than anyone else.
The numbers of people who oppose do not seem disproportionate to me. Opposition to wars tends to get large amounts of protestors, and significant amounts of media coverage, as they should. Compared with other laws that I oppose: things like the NO2ID campaign seem to have many supporters - which I'm glad of, but compared to other civil liberty and sexual freedom issues, I don't see a disproportionate focus on the "extreme" porn law. (We might see more interest on the Informed Consent Activism forum, but that's what one should expect from a forum intended for BDSM Activism.)
But the real point is this: Yes, there *are* better things to worry about - there are better things to worry about than some people looking at a few "disgusting" pictures. This is criticism that should be levelled at supporters of the law, not something for critics (who have in fact been making this very criticism). Critics of this law are generally individuals working in their spare time. Supporters of the law include lobby groups and organisations which employ people full time, not to mention the Government. I imagine that the time, resources and money spent passing this law will far exceed the amount spent by those who oppose it - and this will be even more true when we include the cost of policing the law, and locking people up.
When people criticise the law, on various grounds, including the point that there are better things to worry about, I feel that those people shouldn't have to worry about that same point. It gets a bit recursive: if we criticise the idea of opposing the law on these grounds, can't someone then say "There are better things to worry about, than a group of people opposing a law"...
That's not to say I don't think this issue isn't important in its own right - I do, for various reasons, many of which are not simply about "being able to look at pornography". But the fact that this isn't the Worse Thing Ever should not be a concern. And if it's viewed as a trivial issue, then that weakens the grounds for passing the law in the first place. Edited Fri 13 Mar 09, 10:48 PM by emark
Replies
27 Jan 09, 1:04 AM
Sara_86
2 yrs
 |
The resistence against the extreme pornographic ban holds more of a purpose for people to rant. If they bottle it up, they tend to feel worse. I don't think it holds so much the purpose to change things. It's really just blowing steam. |
27 Jan 09, 1:16 AM
emark
UK, 6 yrs |
Sara_86 wrote:
The resistence against the extreme pornographic ban holds more of a purpose for people to rant. If they bottle it up, they tend to feel worse. I don't think it holds so much the purpose to change things. It's really just blowing steam.
|
It's true that it's evident that the probability of convincing this Government on the matter is zero, so it has no chance of changing it in that sense. But I don't think it's fair to say that this wasn't people's intent. (Note that the opposition at least got some changes to the law, which although minor, may still be of help to some.)
And I think the question of people's motives applies to any issue: those who support the law, those who comment on people who oppose it - as well as any other kind of political issue. People who post on their blog and so on an issue may often just be wanting to let off steam (or perhaps wanting to debate the issue). People who form organisations, write to their MP, protest about it, probably hope for some effect - even if that's raising awareness and debate, as opposed to stopping the law. Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.
Edited 27 Jan 09, 1:18 AM by emark
|
27 Jan 09, 11:03 AM
spirifer
UK, 4 yrs
|
I feel that those who think this is just about people perving over dirty pictures are very short-sighted.
When the MP who helped to push this through can say on national TV that the law is designed only to target the most extreme images, such as of women actually being raped and killed on film [sic], yet the legislation criminalises the possession of scenes downloaded from BBFC classified forms, there is something seriously not right going on.
I don't know how the law will affect me personally; I don't think any of us will know that until case law establishes some precedents. However, whatever effect the law has on me, I regard this overwhelmingly as a civil rights issue, and will continue to oppose such infringements of my civil rights. The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
27 Jan 09, 12:26 PM
El_Presidente
UK(G), 2 yrs
|
Sara_86 wrote:
The resistence against the extreme pornographic ban holds more of a purpose for people to rant. If they bottle it up, they tend to feel worse. I don't think it holds so much the purpose to change things. It's really just blowing steam.
|
It may not change the law, but if it goes some way towards changing people's perceptions and eroding people's prejudices, then it *is* changing things in a very necessary and positive way. It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
|
27 Jan 09, 12:30 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs |
spirifer wrote:
I feel that those who think this is just about people perving over dirty pictures are very short-sighted. |
I agree with you - I see it as being about many issues: that even someone who tries to be law abiding could get caught and go to prison, with no chance to simply delete the photos (so this isn't simply like normal censorship laws, like the BBFC where you get told what "cuts" to make to the film); about people's scene photos that may be illegal whether or not they perve over them; the chilling effects of the law, and the fear people may have of visiting BDSM sites that may have images (not just porn sites); that it unfairly targets only some images, and demonises our sexuality; the way a law is forced through on scaremongering rather than evidence. Even if this law won't affect me, if I wasn't into BDSM at all, I feel I'd still think it was a rather mad law.
Lovely to meet you on Sunday btw 
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.
|
27 Jan 09, 12:35 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs |
El_Presidente wrote:
It may not change the law, but if it goes some way towards changing people's perceptions and eroding people's prejudices, then it *is* changing things in a very necessary and positive way.
|
I agree, this has always been my thought too. Whilst the primary target may have been to stop or at least suitably amend the law, an important secondary side effect is to at least get awareness about it. I'm glad that mainstream media are at least expressing people's concerns, and not simply reproducing Government spin, Salter's snuff films, and Longhurst's grieving.
I guess the battle now is to try to help anyone prosecuted under the law for consensual material, and raising awareness on the law is all part of that. Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.
|
27 Jan 09, 2:11 PM
spirifer
UK, 4 yrs
|
emark wrote:
<snip>
Lovely to meet you on Sunday btw
|
You too! The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
|
|
