On the old Webcameron site you responded to an "Ask David" question asking for your feelings about the plans to outlaw the possession of "Extreme or violent pornography".
You said that "[...] the Government now wants to legislate to ban the possession of extreme pornography, for example off the internet on sites from overseas. The Bill has yet to be introduced to Parliament but, once it is published, we will obviously consider the proposals very carefully. The Government says it has looked at things like human rights considerations. But with any new legislation, we will need to make sure it is necessary and that it will work properly and fairly before we decide whether or not to back it."
Their plans have now been revealed in the CJIB 2007 and they are the most ludicrous and draconian proposals I have ever seen.
They will not prevent people accessing perfectly legal adult websites in other EU countries (they cannot, unless the Government introduces a British version of the Great Firewall of China), they will not protect anyone from harm (indeed no credible evidence *of* harm from these images has been provided) and the Government even admits that the laws are in clear breach of Human Rights Legislation in the notes that accompany the Bill and yet still they wish to proceed with them!
Here is a link to relevant part of CJIB:
The dangers of the proposals are clear from statements such as: An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
The Home Office claimed that these cases brought under their proposals would be decided "objectively", but a decision on how something "appears" is clearly *subjective* and based on nothing more than the viewer's personal opinion. Not only that, it would require the Jury to decide not if *they* find the image "sexually arousing", but if the Defendant or some hypothetical third party might!
The Government has also claimed that this law would only "close a loophole in the Obscene Publications Act", yet it would not, because the subjective decision above completely bypasses the OPA!
It goes on:
An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals.
Once again these decisions are entirely subjective. And, for that matter, how is a Jury supposed to distinguish between actual acts of violence and consenting adults engaged in consensual BDSM activities based on a still image, let alone movie acting and makeup?
It continues by making an even more ridiculous proposal suggesting that certain images could be excluded but:
65 An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it appears that the image was extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
This would, for instance, outlaw video clips or screen captures from movies legally classified by the BBFC, effectively they are saying it's ok to watch the movie as a whole, but if you take a frame or a clip out of that movie and look at it on its own, you may be a criminal. (Also, if you think about it, it could even make use of the Pause Button illegal!)
The proposed penalties for looking at "Dangerous Pictures" are up to three years in jail and being placed on the Sex Offenders Register. I just hope that all those Burglars, Robbers and Drug Dealers who have been released early have left the prisons in a nice condition...!
David, I hope you will agree that these proposed laws are by no means "necessary" or "proportionate" (two of the fundamental criteria required by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights), neither are they "fair" or "necessary" as you, yourself, said, and I hope you will agree that this whole section of the CJIB should not even be amended, but should be removed entirely to protect people from being victims of a "New Labour Thought Crime".
Here we have yet another law which this Government has managed to make a mess of.
The campaign for the restriction of extreme porn led so bravely by Liz Longhurst, thought they were getting what they asked for; the banning of extreme pornography.
In reality we cannot unilaterally ban anything on the internet, such a ban would need international cooperation, as the child pornography laws have. So what does this Government do? Work at creating a law, to restrict access to this material, which other countries can accept and cooperate with? You would think that would be the sensible approach wouldn't you? Instead we get a pointless gesture of a law, which will not affect this materials availability online one iota. Almost no other country has agreed to cooperate with this futile mess, as it stands.
This law is not just badly written, it is incompetently written and utterly irrational. This law cannot achieve its stated objectives, those for which the Longhursts have campaigned so long for; putting this material beyond the reach of the young and the vulnerable. This administration is still not up to speed with modern technology and has totally misunderstood the internet.
This law, in its current wording, can in no way affect the availability of this material online, it is the pointless creation of yet another imprisonable crime for no good purpose. Gesture politics at their worst.
A better constructed, more realistic, law would have gotten international cooperation. Perhaps making it compulsory for these sites to place all their images behind a password barrier, for instance. That would, more likely get international cooperation and keep these images away from children, at least.
This ill thought-out law will almost certainly fall the first time it is challenged in the European courts. This Government has let down, not only the people of this country, but Liz Longhurst who has worked so tirelessly for effective action.
Not even the Governments ‘cleanfeed’ technology, supposed to be in place this year, will filter out everything they don’t want us to see. Whether we like it or not, we cannot effectively prevent adults from viewing whatever they wish to view online - without considerable international agreement and unless we accept that, we will be reduced to locking up a few sad perverts, who look at this stuff, whenever the police are 'lucky' enough to discover their viewing habits.
And luck is the only way they will be discovered, without cooperation from other countries we will get no information from billing companies based abroad, as we do with child pornography, and credit card companies will not be able to tell who is being paid through such middle-men. So, unless the police are going to employ clairvoyants to catch them, how else will they be discovered? British based ISPs cannot check every single internet page, there are billions, and more everyday.
Instead of doing something that may restrict this material, the Government instead pretends that it can really ban it without any cooperation from other countries. This law, at best, is a deception and it will divert resources from real crimes.
Govt has already installed site blocking at every ISP. Hopefully to take down kiddie porn sites and not Webcameron & other subversive campaigns.
Unfortunately these proposed laws would set a precedent where the Government would be able to say "We don't like site XYZ and we think it's dangerous/ harmful to health/ subversive" so we're going to block access to its content to "protect the public".
It seems that they no longer trust us to be able to make up our own minds about what we choose to view and wish to block our access to it or threaten us with jail if we look at "Dagerous Pictures"!
The campaign for the restriction of extreme porn led so bravely by Liz Longhurst, thought they were getting what they asked for; the banning of extreme pornography.
I would point out that the Longhurst Petition actually called for the banning of "Websites which promote violence against women".
Now I, as a responsible member of the BDSM community, and, I'm sure, pretty much all other BDSMers would have been quite happy to sign up to that because we have no desire to inflict *non-consensual* violence on anyone, male or female.
Unfortunately nobody has actually provided the slightest shred of *proof* that such websites or images actually do "promote" violence against women, indeed in the original consultation on the subject the Home Office admitted that there *was* no "clear evidence" of this!
Also there is a clear body of research that shows that such imagery actually provides a cathartic effect such that "violent" impulses can be diverted into safe fantasy instead of real violence (sort of the equivalent of, if you're feeling pi$$ed off, it's better to blast away at characters in a computer game, rather than go out and punch someone!)
It is regrettable that some people like Vernon Coaker MP and Martin Salter MP (who apparently have an anti-porn agenda) seem to have jumped on the Longhurst campaign as a way of pushing their beliefs that we should not be allowed to see this stuff because *they* don't like it and have come up with a nonsensical set of laws that treat us *all* as potential criminals.
Well, do you really expect this Government to behave rationally?
Going after images of real abuse only, would almost certainly get universal international cooperation, unlike this mad law. But they insist on decieving people into believing that they have the power to ban anything here and that ban will affect the entire world wide web, either they are massively naive about the way the internet works or they are deliberately misleading people.
I don't think they have an 'anti-porn agenda', I think they looked at the Longhurst campaign and thought this would be a good bandwagon to jump on and score some cheap political points.
David the 'Cleanfeed' filtering you refer to is vastly over-hyped and will only filter out internet addresses which are reported, or whole areas, which as you say would endanger very many innocent sites, such as this. Given that porn sites habitually have dozens of web addresses attached and can set up new ones in minutes, the technology is next to worthless. To be honest, I would be more concerned if it really worked. Imagine the Govt. being able to filter out anything online they don't want us to see.
As for child porn sites, this is part of the hype. Most child-porn is swapped via peer to peer networks or members only online communities, the criminals have moved on and the Govt. doesn't have a clue what to do.
Another point, about this irrational piece of legislation, is that not only will this proposed law not meet its objectives (in any way), but it is worded in such a way that those prosecuted can be convicted for looking at images that might not get a conviction under the OPA for the publisher!
Power is taken out of the hands of ordinary people (juries) and fixed in law, so that juries will be forced to convict even if they believe no harm was done, worse, even if the defendent can prove no harm was done! Obviously this Govt. doesn't trust the people.
Always beware any Government that brings in new laws under the guise of 'protecting the children', which this one says is one of its objectives. Such emotive statements are usually used to undermine any case against foolish or contentious law. It is clear this law will not affect the availibility of this material online and therefore it will be just as accessable to children, as it is now.
Well, as I know that some people don't approve of this subject per se and hence attack 'verbiage' when given the chance, I won't say much. I'll just provide two quotes by the government on this issue. The first is from the current Criminal Justice Bill, clause 805.
The second is taken from the original government consultation document and is universally known to be true. I stress no new evidence has been forthcoming since Aug 2005. The contradiction is evident. The government is lying.
June 2007:
‘805. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it. Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.’
August 2005:
‘As to evidence of harm, conducting research in this area is complex. We do not yet have sufficient evidence from which to draw any definite conclusions as to the likely long term impact of this kind of material on individuals generally, or on those who may already be predisposed to violent or aberrant sexual behaviour.’
I would furthermore point out that letters have recently been sent to David Cameron and Nick Herbert. I await with interest what they say in reply.
Furthermore, today I am making a written submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as government accepts that this law breaches (they called it ‘interferes with’) human rights articles 8 and 10.
Well, do you really expect this Government to behave rationally?
I'd hope that *all* Governments would behave rationally. Unfortunately expectations, especially where this one is concerned, are another matter entirely...!
Quote:
Going after images of real abuse only, would almost certainly get universal international cooperation, unlike this mad law.
Well, yes, but how is anyone supposed to judge that?
The Government keep claiming that this law will work "like child pornography law", but where child porn is concerned it's usually pretty obvious that the kid involved is underage and therefore not, de jure, capable of giving consent.
The sort of images this law is talking about, however, are certainly not that clear cut and, indeed, I have no doubt that the vast majority of them actually feature adults engaged in entirely consensual acts, no matter *how* it may "appear" to those who are ignorant of BDSM.
Quote:
But they insist on decieving people into believing that they have the power to ban anything here and that ban will affect the entire world wide web, either they are massively naive about the way the internet works or they are deliberately misleading people.
Very true and they've already attempted to deceive people by claiming that these images are "already illegal to publish or distribute", but this is disingenuous nonsense since an image (other than child porn, which is covered by its own entirely separate legislation) is only "illegal to publish or distribute" if a Court deems that it is "liable to corrupt and deprave" as per the Obscene Publications Act.
Of course, in the mean time, pretty much the rest of Europe and the USA are quite happily publishing and distributing these images and if the UK were to say "We want you to stop doing this" would probably say "Why? What's your problem? Nobody's being forced into doing anything they don't want to, nobody's being hurt non-consensually, get a life!"
We do not yet have sufficient evidence from which to draw any definite conclusions as to the likely long term impact of this kind of material on individuals generally, or on those who may already be predisposed to violent or aberrant sexual behaviour.’
Perhaps they just haven't been looking hard enough.
For instance the Williams Report commissioned by the Thatcher Government said in Chapter 6:
Quote:
A great deal of research work - more in the United States than in this country - has been undertaken into the effects of exposure to pornographic or explicit sexual material or material having a violent content. Unfortunately, no very clear impression emerges from the results of this work and, as we shall see, even those who have surveyed it cannot always agree about the conclusions which can be drawn from it.
This report was quietly buried apparently because it didn't come up with the "required" conclusions about the "dangers" of pornography.
The results above suggest that potential rapists perceive pornography as a substitute for rape. With the mass market introduction of the world wide web in the late-1990’s, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary prices for pornography fell. The associated decline in rape illustrated in the analysis here is consistent with a theory, such as that in Posner (1994), in which pornography is a complement for masturbation or consensual sex, which are themselves substitutes for rape, making pornography a net substitute for rape.
My own interest in the rape-pornograpy question began in 1970 when I served as a consultant to President Nixon’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. The Commission concluded that there was no causal relationship between exposure to sexually explicit materials and delinquent or criminal behavior. The President was furious when he learned of the conclusion.
And also Milton Diamond PhD from the University of Hawai'i who concluded:
Quote:
It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims. Even in this area of concern no "clear and present danger" exists for the suppression of SEM. There is no evidence that pornography is intended or likely to produce "imminent lawless action"
It seems that there is eminently "sufficient evidence" to show the *lack* of "long term impact of this kind of material on individuals", but since that doesn't fit in with the agenda of those promoting this legislation, they don't want to see it.
And where the Government says:
Quote:
Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable.
It seems that what they're actually saying is that they don't *CARE* whether people consent to the activities shown in this material, it is "not considered acceptable" by the Government and, as such, people shouldn't be allowed to do it!
Well, I'm sorry, but just because certain members of the Government don't like me or others doing something *does not* justify them threatening us with three years in jail!
Such a law is neither "proportionate" nor "necessary"!
To be honest, I think most people would want some kind of 'control' over access to hardcore and extreme pornography, even if there is no evidence that it causes direct harm.
The question is how to exercise that control realistically and how punitive should the law be? The internet certainly throws governments and the media into a panic, sometimes you would think it was the source of all evil LOL!
Whatever, it is clear, this law is utterly pointless, as it will not bring about the slightest bit of control of any kind, of this material, but merely confuse the situation.
After all, why do something right, when you can do something popular?
Well, given that Graham’s piling in quotes here...
It may in fact be of interest to some that
Professor Ross Anderson, Professor of Security
Engineering, University of Cambridge, and Chair
of the Foundation for Information Policy Research
gave evidence to a Home Affairs Committee on
12 June 2007 which suggested a marked effect of
pornography in reducing sexual offences.
Feel free to check this out at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/uc508-iii/uc50802.htm
On 26 June 2007 the CJB was launched including the
proposed legislation on ‘extreme’ pornography. So
much to government deeming it relevant.
Better still, one of the members of the Home Affairs
Committee is one Martin Salter MP, one of the fore-
most champions of the ‘extreme’ pornography
legislation. The record seems to suggest that
Mr Salter who was present didn’t ask anything of
Prof Anderson.
I think most people would want some kind of 'control' over access to hardcore and extreme pornography, even if there is no evidence that it causes direct harm.
Fine, that's what Parental Responsibility and Content Filters etc are for! That's what the "Close Browser Window" button is for!
That is *NOT* what the *LAW* is for!
Quote:
The question is how to exercise that control realistically and how punitive should the law be?
Let's broaden this discussion a little: Exactly *what* material should be "controlled"? Race hate? Holocaust Denial? Al Jazeera? Video clips of Little Britain?!
*WHO DECIDES* what is or isn't "acceptable" for us to view or read?
Fine, if something can be *shown* to be harmful (eg child porn) I have *no* problem with it being "controlled", nor, I would think, would anyone else.
However legislation *cannot* be introduced based simply on personal taste. There are clearly those in the Home Office who don't like this stuff. They consider it "degrading" and "abhorrent" but to quote Julian Petley:
Quote:
this is the over-heated language of the moral crusader, not the dispassionate prose of the legislator. But frightening people into behaving ‘properly’ and appeasing the moral authoritarians has always been at the root of this measure
If violent imagery is so dangerous, then why is it okay within a Hollywood classic? If screen necrophilia incites copycat killing, then why did the BBFC give a cert to Visitor Q? If sexual tension interspersed with balletic bloodshed is thought to inspire murder, then why not ban Buffy? No, there's no rationality here, no method - just madness. What we have is a good old-fashioned hysterical witch-hunt; just look at the rather uninclusive words of Labour MP Martin Salter: "No one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet." Advise them then, Martin - don't send them to jail. And advise all the others doing "weird stuff" if you would, but please explain first what Labour considers weird, and why there's anything wrong with it. Where's the harm? Who's the victim Martin? Let's have some evidence.
Of course there *is* no evidence, just scare tactics and a desire to control what you or I can see based on the entirely *subjective* and *personal tastes* of someone who doesn't even realise what his own law means.
He doesn't? No, because he says "they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet" but what he apparently hasn't figured out is that if a person takes a picture of themself and their partner engaged in a consensual act, even if they don't put it on the internet and intend it *only* for their private viewing, that image can *still* leave them open to prosecution if anyone else *ever* sees it!
The only "control" that needs to be implemented over such material is for the viewer to decide whether or not they want to see it or for them to deny their children to access it.
Anything else is simply Big Brother censorship and we do not need to emulate the examples of China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea et al who think this is a good idea!
So are you saying that you are into BDSM then Graham?
Now I, as a responsible member of the BDSM community
I take it from that that you are, what many would call a sexual deviant or perverse.
My god I am now stuck with this mental picture of some balding fat geezer all dressed up in black latex sat at a keyboard spouting off how nasty I am for wanting to pursue my sport of pistol shooting. Does it give you pleasure - being critical of others - is that how you get your kicks Graham?
I'm sure the politicians will fully support you. After all they just lowered the age of consent for homosexual acts, they can now go out and enjoy a fag.
I expect I will now get censored for having a different view.
Further comment declined as I don't want to feed your deviance.
Ah, here we go…
So, BDSM is deviant or perverse? I see. May I ask what isn’t perverse?
One could argue anything that isn’t entirely related to procreation is perverse.
Hence, guys who like stockings and suspenders on a woman are perverse.
The same goes for gentlemen who prefer blondes.
It may come as a surprise to you, SmokelessCoal, that sex actually happens in the brain.
Genitals don’t get aroused without something telling them to. Different individuals have different triggers for such arousal. The idea of a ‘sexual norm’ is long defunct. I’m sorry this hasn’t caught up with the local gun club yet.
Why does your post annoy me? Yours is the same abuse of tolerance shown by Islamic extremists. You vociferously demand tolerance for your minority lifestyle yet are not willing to extend it to anyone with whose lifestyle you happen to disagree.
Do I want your post censored? No. I loathe censorship. I am loath to see it used against you, as much as I don’t want to see it used against Graham’s lifestyle.
I‘m appalled at your calling people deviants and your reference to homosexuals leaves me in little doubt what your views are on that subject.
Nice to see what ‘caring conservatism’ means in a party that is ‘a broad church’.
Freedom has a price. A price you are evidently not willing to pay, SmokelessCoal. The price is tolerance. Only if the various groups and communities who make up society are tolerant of each other can all expect to be free. You are intolerant, SmokelessCoal. Whatever your vision of the world may be, it can never be a free one.
Now, if someone disapproves of the ‘verbiage’. Tough.
I did not say that I thought Graham was perverse and deviant what I wrote was
"what many would call.."
BDSM, the S stands for sadism does it not. Graham has constantly "barracked" mine and others post on here and AskCameron. Could it be that he gains some form of sadistic sexual pleasure from doing so? I don't wish to be a part of feeding his potential sexual gratification.
So I walk away. In a way I am going into a self imposed exclusion, censorship by intimidation, one group or even an individual ends up with control of the forum because others may not wish to associate with that group or individual.
Yes I find homosexuality abhorant, am I not free to have that view? Does it make me homophobic to walk away?
Smokie - Graham hasn't got control of the forum, he hasn't even got control of himself he just likes to think he has.
I think we've all realised that he likes to engage in debate that leads to the submission of those he debates against but I see it more as a personality trait that extends to sexuality, and I would expect that he has a prominent Pluto in his birthchart. Pluto is all about control - ask anyone who has relationships with Scorpio's.
A lot of surgeons are Scorpio's, it gives them a feeling of playing God and having control of life and death situations. I would expect Liam Donaldson has a prominent Scorpio in his chart too. Sadi-machicism is just a sexual extention of the need to control.
He said: 'Yours is the same abuse of tolerance shown by Islamic extremists. You vociferously demand tolerance for your minority lifestyle yet are not willing to extend it to anyone with whose lifestyle you happen to disagree'.
Is he not also demanding tolerance for his lifestyle? and would the corollary be therefore that he would argue as vociferously for the toleration of Islamic extremists?
When you actually look at Graham's arguments, as rational and logical as he makes them sound, they are invariably built on a very dodgy premice.
I think we have to understand what exactly we mean by various definitions of pornography. Most people are not worried about pornography that shows natural sexual acts. However the problem lies with pornography that is more about violence than sex. Same goes for the sex-trade.
Is it right that a prostitute can earn money for beating a man? Clearly in such a situation it is wrong that someone can make money out of violently beating and torturing someone who has psychological problems with self-esteem? Certain pornographic videos make money from this type of violence. The so-called porn star actresses are prostitutes who often make a great deal of money out of other peoples misery.
Pornography is always a tricky subject to debate because we all like sex. We exist because of sex. The sexual act is the most natural thing in the world. However torture and violence are nothing to do with sex. Such acts are about the exploitation of others, either for financial gain or taking advantage of their weak psychological condition.
I cannot believe what I’m reading here.
What is this? The middle ages or the twilight zone?
Tonymakara thinks any form of BDSM is some sort of demonic practice where one is ‘taking advantage of the weak psychological condition’ of another. What is a weak psychological condition, please?
Astrocat quotes me as Graham and states that either Graham or myself seek to achieve some sort of quasi submission by debate. Yet more, that this somehow extends into sexuality. Reasoning tolerance toward a sexual minority somehow argues in favour Islamic extremists. Interesting.
Finally, Smokelesscoal first goes to evade by stating he never said anything hostile but had only eluded to what others ‘may think’ and then goes to confirm the proposed position nonetheless.
Well, folks. Psychology really accepted the notion of sado-masochism as being benign decades ago. There is no reason why Graham’s sexual inclination should in any way be targeted. Were he gay then I think the new mood in the Tory party would frown upon this. Yet, this is a different sexual minority, so suddenly one feels free to gang up on him in the school yard. This indicates an acceptance of tolerance of homosexuals, as publicly stated, yet not an acceptance of the actual reasons for doing so. Doesn’t this reveal a lack of conviction?
The crux of it is that you somehow care about Graham’s sexuality. I don’t. Frankly I couldn’t care less what he gets up to. He can do what he wants as long as it doesn’t affect me or others in society. I can’t see how his sexuality could possibly impact on me or others. So he should be free to do as he wishes. This is just plain and simple logic.
My position is arrived at from the principled application of indifference towards what is a harmless personal trait. How would one arrive at the position you folks are arguing from? Please explain this.
To justify a desire for law you need force of reason. Finding another’s sexual mores abhorrent is irrelevant. If it were relevant imagine where we’d end up. Is there really anyone – and please think this through – who wants the policing of private sexuality?
‘Hello. We’re the sex police. May we come in?’
What is incredibly interesting is that the Labour government are really screwing up here. They are deceiving, lying and cheating. All to somehow sneak through a law which is fundamentally flawed. Holes are not merely being picked, but rather torn in this legislation. They are insisting on absolute necessity of a blanket ban and are then granting exemptions in order to sure up support. The logic is coming completely unstuck. They aren’t just vulnerable. It’s a wide open goal. Yet, here we are on a Tory website. And you guys are going out of your way to tacitly agree with them.
Long live Brown, ey?
Well, to an extent I agree with many of your points on this law Graham.
The most effective way to control what children see online is by parental monitoring, there can be no doubt about that and no amount of legislation will change this.
Even so, in my opinion, most people would want some controls of extreme pornography, whether that is a fair or rational view does not stop it from being a strong probability.
I think there are very few who believe that there should be no censorship of any kind. We agree, as would most, that material which is harmful should be controlled.
So who decides what is harmful and what is not?
Well it can only be parliament and the courts, there is no other mechanism for this.
And, it seems, this is where the problem lies. The temptation to use the Longhurst campaign to score cheap political points has obviously been too great for this Govt. to resist.
Where your case runs into difficulty is the ease with which the Govt. conflates the harmful with the harmless material in the minds of the public. How do you clear the muddied waters?
I’m sure we can all agree that images of real sexual abuse are unacceptable, in as much as their consumption may encourage more abuse.
So we have two entirely different things, that, on the surface ‘look’ similar (at least to those unfamiliar with them), those two things being; images of real adult sexual abuse and images of consensual role-playing of adult sexual abuse (or acting as most people call it).
As for the question of whether merely viewing this material is harmful to society or not, well Prof. Williams answered that question many years ago and your own references show that he was not alone in that opinion, but such facts are either suppressed or at best ignored by Govt. So the situation is (as can be seen from some posts to this thread) that many feel that viewing extreme porn may be harmful in some way, though this is clearly an erroneous view, based on the evidence, it is one that may be difficult to correct.
As you point out, acting is in itself harmless, if it were not then more serious crimes like acted murder (which has become commonplace in mainstream entertainment – Shakespeare for instance) would be first on the list for banning. We know that there is no evidence that looking at this material is in itself harmful either to the individual or society as a whole, so that obviously makes the Govt. aim of “protecting the public” or even “protecting public morality” redundant.
What we are left with is the protection of those involved in the making of this material. It is perfectly reasonable for the Govt. to try and discourage the consumption of images of real abuse (for the reasons given above), but is the criminalising of images that show consensual ‘acted’ scenes an acceptable price for this, is it a proportional response?
When introducing law which will infringe basic rights and imprison people, the Govt. must prove the case for such laws, otherwise we would simply get laws at ministers whims.
So, A/ Does the Govt. prove the need for this law? And B/ is this law proportional in its response to that proven need?
Should we treat all images as if they are of real sexual abuse, as the Govt. proposes? Well if there is an industry abusing people on a large scale to supply this material, then that would seem to be the only option and the infringement of the right to view images of consensual role-playing, may seem a reasonable sacrifice. What evidence does the Govt. show to support this?
My reading of the law itself does not include any evidence presented to support the Govt claims, do you know where the Govt. shows this? I would be interested in reviewing it.
My main concern has been the incompetance and naivity of those who wrote this law.
SteveMD,
Well, at last we have a reasoned approach.
What evidence has the government submitted and what is its thinking?
Ok, first off, this will evidently be a longer post. Please remember, I’m not holding a gun to anyone’s head to make them read it(!).
First thing. No material evidence is forthcoming either from government or from any consultation submission I have heard of.
The only evidential approach taken is the use of the Spanner case as precedent.
The case in question is Brown [1994] 1 AC 21.
It is without doubt one of the most controversial rulings of past decades. I stress this is not opinionated hyperbole. The controversy is fact. There is in fact still a charitable trust operating, which seeks to see this ruling overturned.
Other than that there has been nothing other than assumption in support of this law.
Government assumes that there is real abuse. No evidence. Period.
The government (now) assumes there is harm. Even though its own consultation position in 2005 contradicts this assumption and available evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
As for my position on the reality of abuse. There are only two cases I have heard of. Both are controversial, as they seem to entail couples who published material, with apparent consent, but then on acrimonious break-up one partner claimed otherwise. So these are far from straight forward.
Other than that I have heard of nothing that would support the existence of real abuse. I have been looking into this now since the government launch of the proposal in August 2005 and I have not found anything. Given that MPs like Martin Salter are talking of the existence of ‘snuff movies’ for sexual gratification, etc we are really talking of out and out deceit. Such material, categorically, does not exist.
I am personally willing to concede that some real abuse most likely exists. After all, all sphere of human activity involves crime. But it seems beyond doubt that the amount of real abuse, if it can be found at all, reflects less than 0.1% of the material the government wish to see banned from possession (most likely the figure is much smaller than that). Once again, this is not exaggeration. This is what I, to the best of my knowledge, can discern as fact.
As for the Spanner case, this is being argued as a basis to deny that any hard sado-masochistic material is consensual. The court’s argument is regurgitated that one cannot in law consent to such an act. The objection remains that people can indeed agree to risk, or even harm, for their enjoyment, one need only look at sport and other past times.
So there you go for evidence. People cannot consent to sado-masochism (evidence: Spanner case). People must be protected from real abuse (evidence: none). People are harmed by viewing (evidence: none).
My position is clear. Yet I am not presenting the government case in a biased way. The above is all they have.
My local Labour MP, who was evidently briefed prior to his meeting with me, used argument that the principle of such law not needing to prevent real harm was already established in pseudo-child porn law. (Please folks, before you pile in screaming, note the word ‘pseudo’ and inform yourself about it).
The law on pseudo material is of course controversial in itself, though not hotly contested as it largely deals with recognized paedophiles.
Yet it is now being used as an argument in favour of laws against adult pornography. i.e. We don’t need to prove harm. If it’s objectionable, that suffices.
This approach is quite terrifying, as it implies a ‘wandering argument’. One legislative precedent (legislative, not judicial!) is being used to force another. This is quite literally the slippery slope.
It means they may then feel free to use this law on ‘extreme’ porn, once established to argue as a precedent for further encroachment.
So really, that is the totality of government thinking.
Spanner provides a basis from which to deny that anyone consents to this, as they cannot legally do so. Therefore it is abuse as it is ‘non-consensual’. Pseudo-Child Pornography law does away with the need for evidence of harm. End of case.
As pointed out above, no evidence has been presented at all.
They see themselves justified in protecting people both from ‘demeaning themselves’ by voluntarily taking part in staged scenes.
They see themselves justified in protecting people from taking part voluntarily in practice, though non-consensually in law, stating that no-one in fact can give consent.
I know it sounds hard to believe. But that really is it.
That is their case. Period.
Astrocat quotes me as Graham and states that either Graham or myself seek to achieve some sort of quasi submission by debate. Yet more, that this somehow extends into sexuality. Reasoning tolerance toward a sexual minority somehow argues in favour Islamic extremists. Interesting.
Apologies Phantom that I confused your post with Grahams.
However they were your words not mine that argued the abuse of tolerance of minority lifestyles was comparable to the abuse of tolerance by Islamic extremists.
Furthermore you say that you are indifferent to Grahams sexuality being that it is a harmless personality trait and yet you object to me saying 'I see it more as a personality trait that extends to sexuality',
so either sexuality is or it's not a personality trait
would you explain this please.
With regard to Grahams personality, he does seek intellectual stimulus which you inform us is the trigger for arousal and when he is proven wrong as was illustrated in the discussion we had regarding the provision of porn for convicted criminals and the financing of the EU and UN, he gave me the last word .... which would be submission.
And that's why I can say that he seeks submission by debate and sexuality is an extention of the personality.
