Public Consultation response
Possession of extreme pornography
Introduction
Ofwatch is an organisation that represents the consumers of pornography on
UK adult subscription television services. Although this consultation covers
material that is beyond the scope of any UK television service, the
principles at stake are so important that a response is required.
Ofwatch does not condone or support harm to anyone, does not support any
non-consensual activity of whatever nature and does not wish to offend
anyone. It is however necessary to ensure that viewpoints are presented from
all quarters of society and we make no apology for speaking openly and
bluntly.
The issues raised by this consultation are far more complex than the
questions asked would suggest and because of this we felt that it was
necessary to respond more fully. Specific answers to the consultation
questions can be found in the appendix.
Important definitions
The need to be clear about definitions is of paramount importance and the
following terms are used throughout this document:
- “Consensual” refers to participants who take part in activities of
their own free will.
- “Apparently non-consensual” refers to participants who take part in
activities of their own free will, but where it appears that no consent
was given due to acting or special effects.
- “Non-consensual” refers to participants who were forced to take part
in activities against their will.
- “OPA” refers to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964 as well
as the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which for our purposes
amount to the same thing.
- “CJA” refers to the Criminal Justice Act 1988
- “SOA” refers to the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Executive summary
There is a tremendous gulf between consensual and non-consensual acts that
has not been appropriately recognised in the proposed legislation. The most
fundamental problem with these proposals is the attempt to criminalise
consensual “realistic depictions” of serious harm. The vast majority of
violent pornography involves images of realistic depictions rather than
images of actual acts and the proposals would criminalise both
indiscriminately.
The proposals would create “crimes of context” where images that would be
legal to possess in one context would become illegal to possess in another.
Governments have persecuted minority groups in the past on moral grounds,
sellers of hardcore pornography and homosexuals being prime examples. Both
cases involved enormous distress and suffering and in neither case was such
persecution justified. When taking action that will seriously effect peoples
lives the need for reliable evidence cannot be over emphasised yet such
requirements are all too often abandoned in the face of emotional pleas. If
any further examples of problems of evidence are required we need look no
further than the debacle over weapons of mass destruction.
Although generally ineffective there will undoubtedly be some “success” in
prosecuting known members of the BDSM community most likely the more naïve
and vulnerable members of this group for the crime of enjoying their own
innate sexuality in private. This is not morally right, however convenient
it might be for the police or the Government.
Given the admission that international cooperation is essential in combating
violent pornography, the chances of preventing psychopaths who have the
capacity to carry out cold blooded murder from accessing such readily
available content is non existent and the effects of doing so even if it
were possible are unclear.
Beyond criminalising consensual acts between adults in private and being
ineffective in combating real harm and there are other serious adverse
effects.
Consumers of mainstream pornography would be in constant fear of
contaminating their computer hard drives with illegal content. This risk is
different in nature to that involving child abuse images as violent content
is widely available and consumers might well expect to encounter it
regularly in searches for other pornographic content. It would be
exceptionally difficult to determine if images had been downloaded
accidentally or not.
The proposals would exacerbate the problems of repressed sexuality that are
so endemic in British society increasing prejudice and irrational fear that
might well lead many well intentioned parents to become overprotective and
more interventionist in their teenagers sexual development. Such over
protective action can cause serious resentment, frustration and anger which
can be very damaging and in some individuals may awake the aberrant sexual
behaviour that these proposals are aimed at suppressing. The proposals may
in fact make the situation worse.
If it is acceptable to criminalise people in the absence of any reliable
evidence of harm based on what is primarily intuition and moral arguments
there is every reason to suppose that further action is likely and that
these proposals are merely the opening round in the Governments attempt to
censor the internet.
Current and proposed Legislation
The Obscene Publications Act
The number of prosecutions under the OPA has fallen from 309 in 1984 to 39
in 2003. We are told that this may be due to a higher priority being given
to combating child abuse. This may in part be true, however there are other
reasons as well. The law is heavily weighted in favour of the prosecution
with wide spread use of destruction orders that prevent or discourage trial
by jury in many cases. Of those cases that do reach the courts juries are
increasingly reluctant to condemn their fellow citizens to years in prison
based on what effectively amounts to distaste and subjective opinion.
The principle of regarding sexual expression such as pornography as an
inferior and unworthy form of expression that is clearly apparent in the OPA
is unjustified. Although we realise that there is little hope of making any
progress in revising the OPA in this consultation, the Obscene Publications
Act is in serious need of revision and in its present form should not be
used as the basis to justify any further legislation of any kind.
Comparing the principles in existing legislation with the new proposals
As the proposed legislation does rely heavily on the existing requirements
of the OPA and CJA it is perhaps worth examining how the proposals relate to
this legislation in more detail.
The CJA imposes possession restrictions that are absolute. There are no
public interest exemptions and rightly so, as there can be no artistic,
scientific or other grounds for abusing children, so there are not, and
cannot ever be, any contextual justification for offences covered by this
Act.
The OPA imposes distribution restrictions that are not absolute. There are
public interest exemptions and rightly so, as there are artistic, scientific
and other grounds for permitting the distribution of obscenity, so there can
be contextual justification in some cases.
The proposed legislation would take the absolute possession restrictions of
the CJA and apply them to content that requires the contextual exceptions of
the OPA. This would be unprecedented and would create many difficulties
particularly in matters of context. There would be cases where material that
was illegal to even possess in one context would be entirely legal to
distribute in another, see appendix C for examples.
This would effectively introduce a new crime of possessing material out of
context (for example extracting a single scene from a film thus excluding
contextual justification). Such “contextual crimes” are (arguably) workable
in the case of distribution where at least legal opinion can be sought, but
cannot reasonably be applied to possession. The manner in which people store
or arrange content should not be a criminal offence.
The risks of criminalisation by change of context are bad enough for content
that breaches the OPA restrictions on distribution, but would pose a totally
unreasonable risk in the case of legally distributed media. Miscarriages of
justice would be almost inevitable under these circumstances and this alone
should be sufficient reason to block the proposed legislation.
The position with images of child abuse is different in principle to the
position with violent pornography. Children cannot give their consent by
definition, being below the age of consent where as adults are (at least at
the time of writing) free agents who can. The case of apparently
non-consensual violent pornography is the exact opposite of that with images
of child abuse where consent is concerned.
Key Objections
Realistic depictions
It is wrong in principle to criminalise the mere possession of images of
apparently non-consensual acts (that constitute the overwhelming majority of
the material that would be criminalised), for the purposes of ensuring that
images of truly non-consensual acts can be prosecuted as well.
It would be no more reasonable to convict two men of committing a crime that
only one could have carried out on the basis that it was too difficult to
decide who was actually guilty. Such a position defies natural justice and
common sense. It is not reasonable for thousands of innocent people to be
convicted in order to ensure the successful prosecution of a very small
number of criminals. The old saying “better a thousand guilty men go free
than one innocent man go to prison” would be turned on its head.
It may be “convenient” to apply blanket restrictions that apply to all acts
but such restrictions would not be based on justice and are simply not
proportionate to the actual risk.
To say that there is no requirement that the activity is real in the OPA
ignores the fact that there is also no prohibition on simple possession in
the OPA. If the proposals were to be enacted we could see the ridiculous
situation of people being convicted of owning pictures of themselves
carrying out acts that involved no breach in the criminal law.
Accidental possession
It is wrong in principle to criminalise the possession of material the exact
content of which people will not be aware of until after it has been
downloaded and is in their possession.
It is simply not good enough to suggest that the intention is not to
prosecute people for accidental possession. There have been many cases of
convictions for possession of images of child abuse that rested on the
possession of a single deleted image and unlike child abuse images, violent
sexual images are widely available in large quantities mixed with other
pornographic content much of which is now, and would remain, legal to
possess.
Despite claims that there is no intention to prosecute accidental
possession, we believe that the chances of sorting accidental acts from
deliberate acts will be virtually impossible and that consequently
miscarriages of justice would be a common occurrence.
Some foreign pornographic websites do not sell titles, simply hours of
viewing. Customers may select any content from many thousands of titles in
hundreds of different categories. In many cases it would not be possible to
determine the legality prior to viewing.
A person who was legitimately seeking pornographic content would be likely
to encounter a large amount of illegal material in their search given the
international nature of the Internet and the legality of violent pornography
in other jurisdictions. In these instances such a person might well delete
such content; however significant amounts of such material might well still
be found by forensic means.
In our opinion the chances of prosecution in such a situation would be high
as to do otherwise would allow much non-accidental use to be claimed as
accidental. If the answer is that the person shouldn’t be looking even for
this relatively mild pornographic material then it is clear that the
intention is to prosecute a much larger range of material than has been
admitted to. Where there is an indistinct borderline between permitted and
prohibited content what would constitute an accident and how many accidents
will people be permitted before they are put in prison?
Precedent
If primarily moral arguments can be used to prohibit the possession of
images of consensual acts (realistic depictions) between adults in the total
absence of any reliable evidence of any harm caused, there is no logical
reason to stop at violent pornography. If the proposed legislation were
enacted it would provide a precedent for further restrictions. It would
appear likely (and in our view inevitable), that a precedent such as this
would be used as the basis for further inroads into personal liberty and
freedom in the same way that the protection of 16 and 17 year olds in the
Sexual Offences Act is already being used to justify the current proposals.
Morality
It is worth reflecting that until recently hardcore pornography was
considered so harmful to society that despite the lack of any evidence of
harm, those who distributed it were often prosecuted and sent to prison. R18
rated hardcore pornography is now on sale from high street sex shops across
the country following a High court ruling that was lost by the BBFC on the
basis that there was no evidence that the material was harmful to anyone.
Was it morally right to send all those people to prison?
The true goal of this legislation lies at the very heart of the problem. It
has nothing to do with prevention of possession of anything, but everything
to do with a wish to control the ways in which people think. In this
instance the desire to prohibit sexual thoughts about violent content. This
is an area in which it is not appropriate to legislate and it is morally
repugnant to attempt to do so.
The morality arguments used within the consultation gives the impression
that the Government regards people who get enjoyment from the material
described as evil. Even though this may be understandable at face value
given the nature of this material it is entirely inaccurate. Far greater
efforts need to be made on the part of the Government to properly understand
this issue from the perspective of the people who are actually involved and
the consequences of the proposed legislation on them.
The situation is far more complex than has been portrayed and the case for
personal freedom of those who enjoy sexuality in a different ways to those
of a conservative/religious disposition have not been made, despite the fact
that these people will suffer the consequences of the Governments actions.
It is all too clear from the perspective of those who enjoy pornography that
the proposed legislation will be become a weapon to be used against
pornography in general. If the proposals were to be enacted it would no
longer be safe to surf the Internet for certain types of fetish material for
fear of encountering other material that crosses some invisible line and is
considered to be illegal to even possess. No doubt the opponents of
pornography will see this as a highly beneficial outcome, but for those
millions who enjoy pornography it will curtail freedoms that have long been
enjoyed, creating a great deal of fear for many and untold misery for the
few unlucky or naive enough to be caught.
The people who get enjoyment from the type of material described in the
consultation document are not evil people. The terrible acts of Graham
Coutts have coloured this debate to a disproportionate extent and there is a
need to consider the greater picture. Peter Sutcliffe brought about another
terrible tragedy of even greater proportions by killing 13 women because
“God told him to”. Those of a religious persuasion might ponder on the
impact that irrational religious beliefs may have before blaming pornography
for societies ills.
The psychopathic behaviour of criminal minds is not caused by violent
pornography or by religious fervour, although in some cases both may be
symptomatic of such behaviour. Society is unlikely to be protected from
psychopaths by reactive legislation forced through by emotional pleas that
do not take proper account of the evidence, the consequences for prevention
or understanding of the serious knock on effects for millions of people.
It is entirely unreasonable to create laws that affect the sexuality of the
whole of society in an attempt to control a few individual madmen. Millions
enjoy “mainstream” pornography, tens of thousands enjoy Bondage and
Sadomasochism, it is morally wrong to interfere with peoples personal and
private sexuality without very good evidence that it is justified to do so.
Ignorance of this minority of people is no excuse for condemning them to a
life of sexual frustration, fear and imprisonment.
Human Rights Considerations
What people do or do not find abhorrent has no bearing on restricting Human
Rights. There is no exception under article 10 for cases where public
opinion favours restriction. The appropriate test is based on considerations
of harm. The basic Human Right to free expression specifically includes
material that many would find offensive, indeed this is where free
expression needs protecting the most.
We do not share the Government’s view that the proposed legislation can be
considered compatible with the Human Rights Act. Freedom of expression is a
basic Human Right and although not an absolute right, Lord Bingham of
Cornhill former Lord Chief Justice had this to say on Human Rights:
“The European Court of Human Rights has imposed a strict test of necessity,
relying on such concepts as pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness. The
overriding principle is clear: since the right in question is to be regarded
as fundamental, any restriction of it must be strictly justified."
So whilst it is certainly permissible to restrict free expression or any
other non-absolute right, any such restrictions must be strictly justified.
The level of evidence provided by the Government (i.e. none) is hardly
compatible with this statement particularly since the prohibition refers to
possession rather than distribution.
In the final analysis if the Government is able by some clever legal means
to circumvent the spirit of the Human Rights Act to imprison people for the
mere possession of material for which it has no sound evidence of harm of
any sort on the basis of moral principle then article 10 in the Human Rights
Act is not worth the paper it is printed on.
International position
No other foreign Government in the western world agrees with the proposals
of the British Government. This does not make it “more important that we act
against possession domestically”, it makes it more important that the
Government reconsiders what it is doing and why it is totally isolated.
If international co-operation is essential for effective action against the
production of extreme material then the total lack of co-operation means
that the chances of effective action are zero.
We suggest that the reason why the United Kingdom is isolated over the
proposals concerning possession of extreme material is because foreign
Governments have a far greater respect for the personal freedom, autonomy
and common sense of their citizens.
About consumers of extreme material
As stated in the introduction extreme material is beyond the scope of our
remit at Ofwatch, however in our campaigning over restrictions on R18
pornography we have encountered a vast range of different perspectives
including some people with an interest in extreme material. Some knowledge
of the people who will be criminalised by the proposed legislation may help
to inform the debate.
People who enjoy violent pornography do not enjoy it by choice and did not
learn to do so by being exposed to it. These people have an innate
attraction to it, possibly reinforced by a background involving a repressive
upbringing involving sexual repression.
Such people come to terms with their alternative/aberrant sexuality and
manage to live entirely ordinary lives in other respects. They are victims
as much as anyone else. Is it right to put these people in prison because of
moral objections to their sexuality by others?
Current plans will effectively criminalise the BDSM community and such
action shows very worrying similarities with the persecution of
homosexuality in the past. Homosexuality was considered abhorrent and
immoral by the majority, children were considered to need protecting from it
and thousands were persecuted for their sexuality and their lives ruined. Of
course there was no evidence of any harm in this case either, it was another
moral issue.
Answering the issues raised in the consultation
Public abhorrence
Most people would find this material abhorrent; however public distaste in
matters of private morality that simple possession represents is not an
appropriate basis for legislation. Large numbers of people find vivisection,
abortion, homosexuality and the war against Iraq abhorrent, yet there is no
suggestion that these matters should be decided by popular opinion. It is
disingenuous to claim support from public opinion only when it agrees with
Government intentions.
Public opinion is borne out of ignorance rather than insight. What is
desperately needed is rational thought, discussion and understanding of this
complex issue. If intolerance were allowed to win through fuelled by
emotional demands that the Government must “do something”, justice would be
replaced by persecution. Sadly this trend is already apparent from the
deplorable situation where people’s lives are destroyed by allegations of
child abuse which are later dropped by the police.
Breaking the demand/supply cycle and discouraging interest
Without international co-operation there is not the remotest chance that
supply will be significantly affected and because of the innate sexual drive
involved people will not have their “interest discouraged” any more than an
interest in mainstream sexuality would be discouraged by making that
illegal.
To prevent the encouragement and reinforcement of violent and aberrant
sexual activity
The vast majority of people would find viewing the material under discussion
abhorrent. They would be repelled by it no matter how much they were exposed
to it. There is a tiny minority that specifically seek out this material, as
they find it sexually stimulating. Both sorts of reaction are innate and
will not be changed one way or the other. The few psychopaths who this
legislation is really targeted at will continue to view this material with
impunity leaving the more naïve and vulnerable members of the general public
to take the blame.
To protect those who participate in the creation of sexual material
containing violence, cruelty and degradation
Crimes committed against people living in the UK are a matter for the
police. Crimes committed abroad are a matter for foreign Governments. The
best way to prevent criminal abuse is by prosecuting the abusers not
criminalising an ever increasing range of images in the hope of ensnaring
one or two of the guilty amongst a multitude of the innocent. Protecting
people from harm is a worthy aim, but if such protection forcibly overrides
individual autonomy with the Government acting in loco parentis for the
entire adult population then it degrades and diminishes everyone. At the
very least those who it is proposed to protect should be engaged in debate.
To protect society particularly children
A modern up to date Internet filter will remove virtually all unwanted
content. Even without such a filter the extreme material in question has to
be sought out, it does not appear on desktops unbidden. In order to protect
society it is necessary to have a better understanding of the effects that
the presence or absence of this material will have on society. Children
would be far better protected by a campaign to increase media literacy and
empower parents than ineffective legislation that will create fear and
intolerance.
To close the gap in existing legislation and be consistent with the approach
to child pornography
There is no gap in existing legislation. What is proposed is to extend the
law into areas previously considered private and personal, areas in which
only the very strongest evidence of harm provide sufficient justification.
Child abuse provides such justification as the images represent a record of
non-consensual activity by definition. Extreme pornography on the other hand
does not. The vast majority of this material is consensual despite
appearances to the contrary. It is easy to recreate apparently
non-consensual acts with trick photography, good acting and makeup and it is
entirely inappropriate to confuse acts that are non-consensual with acts
that appear to be non-consensual. Non consensual acts are rightly
criminalised; apparently non-consensual acts are an entirely different
matter.
To send a clear message that it is wrong
This is a particularly worrying reason. Governments tend to have poor track
records in legislating on moral issues, as anyone convicted of selling
hardcore pornography prior to 2000 would agree. We should not forget that
homosexuality was also “wrong” and that thousands suffered at the hands of
unjust laws for decades. Such persecution was based on prejudice and
ignorance and has no place in society.
It is only wrong if is causes real harm. Consensual make believe images
created by adults for adults cause no harm and are not “wrong”.
To make it easier to combat activities that are illegal in themselves
Many of the activities that would be criminalised are not illegal in
themselves. It is not illegal to create images that imitate criminal acts by
use of special effects, make up and good acting as can be seen in the
majority of dramatic content broadcast on commercial television including
everything from Miss Marple to Dawn of the Dead and pornography is no
exception.
Applying restrictions to pornographic material only
Given the vagaries of differentiating pornography from art it is hard to
believe that restrictions on pornography will not impact other areas.
The CJA to which so much comparison has been made allows no exceptions and
the OPA does not criminalise possession. The message sent is that images of
torture are acceptable for entertainment purposes as long as they are not
sexual entertainment purposes.
The question must be asked why is “artistic” entertainment considered worthy
entertainment where as sexual entertainment is considered worthless?
Entertainment is entertainment; tastes vary but allowing highbrow
entertainment greater latitude is simply class based intellectual snobbery.
Sexual expression deserves as much protection as any other form of free
expression does. In the absence of any evidence of harm all free expression
should be protected. Similarly in the face of serious actual harm there is
no reason to allow non-sexual expression any greater leeway than sexual
expression.
Paul Tavener
On behalf of Ofwatch
November 2005
Appendix A
Answers to the consultation questions
1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires
the law to be strengthened?
No. The challenge that now faces the Government is to resist the temptation
to “do something” amidst emotional pleas that something must be done, in the
absence of any reliable evidence based on a single tragedy.
The Internet is arguably the single greatest aid to human communication and
free expression that has ever existed. It is powerful because it is free and
restricting it calls for the strongest of evidence based justifications.
Such justifications do not exist in this case.
2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative
effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is so
degrading, violent or abhorrent that it should not be tolerated?
No. It is necessary to tolerate such material for the good of society. The
damage caused by intolerance is far greater than anything pornography has to
offer. We are particularly concerned that the Government has abandon it’s
evidence based approach. An evidence based approach was taken during the
review leading up to the SOA legislation as is apparent in the document
“setting the boundaries reforming the law on sex offences” from July 2000
(executive summary 0.4).
Sexual repression is the source of much of the problems in society. Human
sexuality is a very complex personal and individual thing. Government
attempts to constrain it by brute force of legislation will be counter
productive. Although it is entirely understandable and reasonable that the
Government should want to prevent harm, the sad truth is that these measures
will create more harm than they prevent.
The real problem that needs to be tackled in society in this area is fear of
sexuality and fear of differences in the way that sexuality is expressed.
This is all too clearly apparent by the hysterical reaction that often
results when a new sex shop is opened. These measures will serve to increase
public fears, parents will become more fearful for their children’s
behaviour out of all proportion to the actual dangers. Overprotective and
interventionist control of young adults sexuality can create huge amounts of
resentment, frustration and anger and in some individuals might help trigger
exactly the sort of “aberrant” sexual problems that these measures are aimed
at preventing but would in fact exacerbate.
Whether a few individual psychopaths will be encouraged or discouraged in
acting out their fantasies for real by the type of content described in this
consultation is unclear. Some psychologists suggest that such extreme
material may act as a release mechanism for some people. It may well have no
effect at all in influencing the final outcome of their behaviour; it might
also have both positive and negative influences depending on the individual
and the circumstances. Until these matters can be resolved there is no
justification for persecuting the tiny minority of people who are not
psychopathic, but who are unfortunate enough to find this sort of material
sexually gratifying on the basis of prejudice, ignorance and distaste.
Watching violent pornography is symptomatic behaviour not causative
behaviour. 99.99% of the tiny minority who watch violent pornography are not
psychopaths, never will be and present no threat to the public whatsoever.
Of the few individuals who do pose a threat the effects of the Government
proposals are unclear.
3. Do you agree with the list of materials set out (in paragraph 39)?
Perhaps unsurprisingly we do not agree with the list. The question assumes
that the respondent has agreed with the Government in answering the first
two questions, the possibility of disagreement does not appear to have been
considered.
The list represents an arbitrary collection of types of content that some
people find particularly objectionable to on moral grounds. Any number of
alternative types of content could have been included depending on the
subjective judgement of abhorrence of those choosing.
Sexual and or violent acts involving animals, coprophilia and images of what
appears to be real harm that have nothing to do with sex could all have been
included (and we would object to all of these on similar grounds), but were
not because being honest, the proposed legislation is a tribute to one
person. The legislation is aimed at “doing something” following an appalling
tragedy and so concentrates primarily on the events relevant to that case.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such
material?
The short answer is yes. The impression is given that there this sentence
should have ended with “given that this material kills people”. In the
absence of any conclusive proof that any particular material is harmful the
fundamental human right of free expression “should” guarantee that material
is available to those who wish to see it.
The question might well be reversed, “what level of proof of harmlessness
must be provided before material is accepted for public consumption”? Or
even “do you believe that the human right of free expression has any value”?
5. Which option do you prefer?
Option 4.
6.Why do you prefer this option?
For the reasons stated in the rest of this submission. In particular:
Because it would criminalise images of legal acts between consenting adults.
Because accidental possession could not be clearly separated from deliberate
possession.
Because it would create crimes of context which would be tantamount to
thought crimes.
Because it would not be based on evidence but on prejudice and would set a
terrible precedent.
Because it would penalise people for their innate sexuality and lead to
witch hunts.
Because it would do nothing to help prevent sex crimes.
Because it would encourage fear and intolerance over sexual orientation in
society.
Because it would restrict freedom of expression.
Because it would divert valuable police resources away from real crime to
real people.
Because it would be an enormous waste of public money.
7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
We prefer no penalty. People who have not committed a crime should not be
penalised for their sexuality. However as penalties are proposed we feel
obliged to comment.
None of the suggested penalties shows a properly considered sense of
proportion. It is not proportionate to simply make the penalty for
possession “less” than the penalty for the actual act itself. Penalties
should be in proportion to the harm caused by the crime committed. The harm
caused by possession of images that are probably staged is indistinct and
probably non existent, whereas the harm caused by real acts of serious
violence against real people is very clear distinct and obvious. The
difference in penalties does not reflect this position.
It is not appropriate to equate the penalty for possession of indecent
images of children reflecting real non-consensual harm, with a penalty for
the possession of content that may not have involved any harm or even any
physical crime at all.
Notwithstanding any other considerations we do not believe that oral sex
with an animal is currently even an offence under the SOA.
Appendix B
Comments concerning the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment
The Human cost of implementing the Governments proposals have not been
mentioned but will be very high. Many lives will be ruined because of them.
Every prosecution brought would also bring a serious risk of children
loosing parents, loss of livelihoods, loss of homes, destruction of
marriages and in some cases even loss of life through suicide and these
effects would not be limited to the “guilty”. Evidence for this can be
clearly seen in operation Ore which has already claimed more than thirty
lives.
The regulatory impact assessment makes no mention of restricting free
expression, yet imposing extreme penalties for indistinct crimes would have
a serious chilling effect upon areas far beyond the scope intended.
Quite apart from other considerations the shear waste of public money in
hunting down, prosecuting and imprisoning members of the public for
possessing dangerous picture beggars belief.
Appendix C
List of content that would be problematic under the proposals
The Good old naughty days” (R18 film certificate)
The film contains scenes that include graphic and explicit images of oral
sex that involve a dog. It is not currently a criminal offence under the
Sexual Offences Act to engage in oral sex with an animal, but under the new
proposals it will become an offence to even possess images of such an act
and this film will become illegal to possess.
Sleepy pornography
There is variety of pornography often referred to as “sleepy” involving
sexual activity with women who appear to be asleep. We presume that this
might also be criminalised under the requirement to prohibit content that
included “realistic depiction of sexual interference with a human corpse”.
Crimes of context
Some clips taken from the following films may become illegal to possess
under the new proposals under what we have described above as a crime of
context, there are hundreds of other examples:
The Evil That Men Do: Starring Charles Bronson
Includes a scene with a man tied naked to some sort of trapeze device and
tortured with electricity in a workshop on interrogation techniques.
Six Feet Under series 2 episode 7 – “corpse of the week”
An autoerotic asphyxiation gone wrong - explicit choking with a belt is
shown (male victim).
Power Play, starring David Hemmings and Peter O'Toole
About a coup d’etat in an unnamed country - teenage girl suspect is tortured
by secret police with electricity through her nipples.
Law and Order: Special Victims Unit from May this year
The opening scenes show BDSM scene gone wrong (or is a murder?) - nude
hanging
girl, staring dead eyes, welts and burn marks all over the body.
