Consultation response
Possession of extreme pornography
Introduction
I am a person who has lamented (and campaigned against) the unjustified and
unwarranted censorship, imposed on the so called freeborn citizens of the
United Kingdom, a country which my parents were once proud to tell me, was a
free one, of which I should be proud to be a subject. Sadly my own
experiences of media restriction (IE: government imposed CENSORSHIP) has
shown that their belief in such individual freedom was not quite true.
People in power with a religious agenda, have, for far too long used their
public position to impose narrow minded, repressive, censorious media
restrictions on free people who might have wished to make a different choice
for themselves, going so far as putting people in prison, for making images
available to other adults which the government now admit, cannot be shown to
be harmful.
This is simply unacceptable.
I therefore object in the strongest terms to the proposed legislation.
My objections to the proposed legislation
This proposed new legislation consisting of a prohibition of possession of
certain forms of extreme pornographic material, resulting in persecution,
and PROSECUTION AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT of people merely for simple
possession of the same, was brought about by the sad, but isolated case of
the Jane Longhurst murder. Whilst no one can help feeling a great deal of
sympathy for the family of Ms Longhurst, there is no justification that this
kind of legislation is at all necessary given the number of people who must
have looked at this material, in comparison to one quite deranged individual
who committed this crime. Once again it seems our politicians are in the
process of involving themselves and other citizens in knee jerk, reactionary
legislation, in response to a single isolated incident. This not at all
fair, and would be a gross violation of human rights.
Indeed my personal view is that if anyone should be imprisoned at all, it is
those who would violate our rights in by creating this sort of draconian
legislation and imposing it on us.
The material the government wants to prohibit
This consists of extreme violence mixed with sexual explicitness, amongst
other extreme material. Though this may seem distasteful, such a distaste
is NOT a valid reason to censor anything, especially by making criminals out
of people who simply possess such material. Nor is the material itself
always particularly harmful in the making because such material can be
STAGED, rather than created by illegal acts inflicted on others, for the
purposes of making such material. If people were really harmed in the making
of certain images, then that HARM so caused, is a justified reason to
prosecute the makers. Those who possess such material should not be
prosecuted. Even if there really was a case for prosecution, it should be a
requirement to show that the violence depicted in the material was REAL,
rather than faked. Faked material should NEVER be criminalised just to make
the job of law enforcement easier. That would not be any kind of justice
The comparison with the current prohibition of possession of child
pornography.
The consultation document contains the statement: This will mirror the
arrangements already in place in respect of child pornography. The intention
is to reduce the demand for such material and to send a clear message that
it has no place in our society.
To compare violent sexually explicit material, and other extreme sexually
explicit material with child pornography, is an extremely foolish and
possibly dangerous thing to for a government to do.
The criminalisation of the possession of child pornography is, I believe on
the government's side of a very fine balance concerning public support, and
compliance with our human rights.
Child pornography is uniquely offensive, dangerous, and nasty. The fact that
children are usually seriously harmed in its production, is beyond question.
Even most otherwise anti-censorship people support censorship of such
material as a necessary evil. However it is not without problems. There have
been too many suicides in people who have been accused of keeping such
material in their possession. There have certainly been many false
accusations. In the case of "Operation Ore", an investigation into
subscribers to a website making child abuse (as well as adult sex) images
available, there have been untruths told by those in law enforcement, about
exactly what was available on the web sites in that case, and it is now
known that most subscribers sought only adult material, and many were
raided, and investigated simply because they were subscribers to what they
thought were web sites showing only adult material. Many were undoubtedly
shocked to learn that their houses were being suddenly and unexpectedly
raided, as if they lived in a repressive dictatorship somewhere in the third
world rather than in free(?) Britain. The crusade that was "Operation Ore"
had all the hallmarks of a modern day witchhunt, to the point where now
people who previously supported it, have begun to call it into question.
Despite all this, the criminalisation of the possession of child pornography
is still widely supported.
The same will not be true about the criminalisation of other extreme
material.
This is because this other material can be faked, and produced in ways which
are not harmful for those appearing in it. The fact that it might look real
is irrelevant.
The prohibition of other visual material will also undermine the message
that child pornography is so uniquely horrendous, only IT is prohibited from
possession.
Other "extreme" material such as bestiality, necrophilia etc.
Bestiality - Though this material is no doubt distasteful, it can be made in
ways which are not "proportionally" harmful enough to justify the penalties
proposed by this legislation. Animals are not always harmed, and need not be
harmed in the making of bestiality pictures. Though this is distasteful, and
now illegal in this country, there is NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for
putting people in prison for possession of such material, and I would NOT
support such a position. There are many people who already possess such
material for reasons best known to them. Should they ALL go to prison ?
Necrophilia - How is the prosecution going to prove that the subject
depicted was actually dead ?
Are they going to prohibit possession of sexually explicit pictures of
people who looked a little stiff in them ? Perhaps you may think such a jest
is offensive, but let me tell you, that I find this proposal to turn people
into criminals for NO GOOD REASON highly offensive.
My answers to the questions put, in the consultation document.
Current Legislation (Page 7)
1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires
the law to be strengthened?
A: No I do not. If anything the OPA should be made even more liberal, and
only material truly and unequivocally harmful (such as child pornography) be
restricted.
Evidence of Harm (Page 9)
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 aberrant
that it should not be tolerated
A: I think it is completely APPALLING that a government in a free western
democracy should be considering this kind of legislation. If material is not
shown to be harmful, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER for
restrictions of this kind to be imposed on it. Indeed I would assert that
the people responsible ought to be prosecuted for Human Rights abuse, and
crimes against humanity. Isn't this the kind of censorious act carried out
by regimes we openly condemn ?
The statement as above: In the absence of conclusive research results as
to its possible negative effects should lead to an OBVIOUS answer. That
answer is NO there isn't.
Content of Material (Page 11)
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
A: No I don't agree with it. I don't agree with it at all. No such visual
material under discussion in the document should be prohibited from
possession.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such
material?
A: It is not about if there is justification for being in possession. Those
who wish to impose restrictions should clearly show that the restriction is
justified, proportionate and necessary. The government in their consultation
document, have shown NONE of these things. People should be able to possess
visual images, unless the case for prohibition is absolutely overwhelming.
The current proposals have all the indications of a repressive regime. They
should be vigorously resisted.
Options (Page 12)
5. Which option do you prefer?
A: Option four - do nothing.
6. Why do you think this option is best?
Because the others would be a restriction of freedom of expression. Such a
restriction has to be justified, and this is not justified.
Penalties (Page 14)
7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
A: None. Such penalties should be reserved for government officials and
politicians who are prepared to violate our human rights in this way.
Conclusion
This proposed legislation is unjust, unwarranted, and unnecessary. It would
undermine the message sent by the criminalisation of pornographic material
involving children, as being especially horrendous and harmful.
There has been discussion of it, in newspapers, and on the internet,
including the "message boards" of the Daily Mail newspaper. The consensus
seems to be that most people do NOT support such legislation.
It is a knee jerk reaction to a sad, but isolated incident of murder, which
most likely would have happened anyway even if such material was criminal to
possess. As such it would be bad law. It pays no regard to freedom of
expression, or human rights. The consultation even document ADMITS that harm
is not in evidence. As such it would be a human rights violation. It should
not happen, and I personally vehemently, and vigorously oppose it.
|
