Consultation response

Possession of extreme pornography

Response from Dark Angel (Simon Taylor)

November 2005

With regards to your consultation on the proposals to make possession of "Extreme Pornographic Material" a criminal offence, I would like to put forward the following points.

Whilst I have no interest in such material and find it all thoroughly distasteful, I feel I must speak out in opposition to these proposals. It seems that the government is trying to criminalise matters of “taste” as there is no evidence what-so-ever to suggest that viewing such material is harmful, that the persons involved are actually being harmed, or that it has a corrupting influence on those who choose to look at it, unpleasant as it may be.

I have been an avid anti-censorship campaigner for many years, owing to my love of horror films. Of which, I have my own review site and am a regular contributor to cult-movie publications such as “Vengeance magazine”, so have an active interest in all matters of censorship, be it state-imposed or otherwise.

Having read through your proposals I therefore feel that on balance they go too far. Unless there is any proof that the persons actually involved in the images were non-consenting, then no harm is being done and no action should be taken.

Perhaps the most worrying part of the proposals I can see are the wider implications to ordinary members of the public these will have. Whilst you claim that the proposals are not there to criminalise people who view such material by accident, or are inadvertently exposed to it, I fear that this will not be the case.

There have been many people who have been prosecuted for inadvertently possessing child porn images, because they were unfortunate enough to have bought second hand computer equipment with the offending images already on the hard drive. Or similarly because images were found in their computers “internet browser cache”, as somebody else had been using their PC to look at illegal sites without the owners knowledge/consent.

It therefore follows that if possession of “extreme pornographic material” becomes a criminal offence, then people will similarly be charged and prosecuted simply for having images on their computers which were the result of a third person, or through accidentally having images in their internet browser cache from inadvertently viewing a site whilst looking through the many mainstream “adult” sites, as many of these cater for all sorts of tastes.

Another detrimental affect of this proposed law is that many cult movies, such as “I Spit on Your Grave” or “Last House on the Left”, which are cut in the UK but legally available to import uncut from abroad, would probably fall foul of these proposals due to the graphic scenes contained within them. Customs officers are not film critics, and whilst the BBFC may have no problem in passing them with minor cuts, customs may take a much different view which would undoubtedly lead to a prosecution and/or a police raid. Believe me, stranger things HAVE happened to persons simply trying to import consensual “adult” porn titles.

It has been my observation that this whole thing appears to be a "knee-jerk" reaction in response to the case of "Jane Longhurst" who was killed by a person who regularly viewed such material on the internet. This proposed law will not prevent future cases like this from happening, whether people are able to access such material or not. Legal or otherwise.

To summarise, I feel that these proposals should be scrapped and no action taken against individuals wishing to view it, as it will not deter or prevent people from doing so and it would also criminalise ordinary people who like to view material such as consensual “bondage” or “sado-masochism” acts. The only time any action should be taken is if the persons participating in the material were not consenting, and any such action should be directed towards the site’s HOST. Not the innocent person trying to view it.

Lastly, attempting to catch people downloading it from the web would simply divert much needed resources away from the fight against child porn, so the proposals would simply do more harm than good.