Please find below my submission to the Home office's consultation "On the
possession of extreme pornographic material". I wish to make my views, as a
concerned member of the public, known about these most illiberal,
authoritarian and unnecessary proposals, which do not stand up to reasoned
scrutiny.
On a point of order, to begin with, the wording of the consultation document
and it's questions (annex A) are not inviting a balanced response, as they
appear to assume (falsely) that all respondents will agree with the
government proposals. Many of the questions also assume agreement with
previous subjective commentary. This is not an acceptable way for such a
public consultation on a prospective change in the criminal law to be
conducted! I intend to contact my MP on this matter in the near future.
Answering the specific questions laid out in Annex A...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. " Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires
the law to be strengthened?"
No. Firstly, there are a number of largely irrelevant references to internet
child pornography in these proposals. Child porn is a uniquely wicked and
exploitative practice, with clearly definable child victims. Law enforcement
should not be deflected from such a grave and significant problem in an
attempt to control the flow of data between consenting adults, even if the
material may be seen as "extreme" in some quarters. In cases where abuse of,
or harm to, individuals has actually occured in the making of this material,
it is obvious that the culprits should be prosecuted rather than people who
have viewed the images.
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?"
The first part of this question is self-defeating in itself. This
legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to one very tragic case, of which we are
all aware. There is no clear evidence that there is a "cause and effect"
situation, whereby citizens who consume internet pornography are frequently
inspired to then commit crime. Furthermore, it could well be argued that
greater censorship may, in fact, make people more likely to commit sexually
motivated crime. It is also dubious to claim that "extreme" porn is
"corrupting". This is similar to suggesting people may become converted to
paedophilia if they encounter child porn on the internet; a ridiculous
notion.
The only situation in which members of society should be criminalised is if
their PERSONAL activities have a clear and proven harmful or detrimental
effect to others. There is already adequate legislation for citizens who
commit acts of assault or murder in real life, and trying to equate or
compare such acts with the mere possession of "extreme" pornography is
highly disingenuous. It is not acceptable, in a free country where
individual rights are respected, to criminalise people on the basis of
perceived taste and decency, which is what the question seems to imply.
The document refers to material which "has no place in a civilised society";
who exactly is the arbiter of this? The police? The judiciary? The tabloid
press? Politicians? This sets a very dangerous precedent of state control
over individual citizen's ability to decide for themselves what is
acceptable within the confines of their own private thoughts and sexuality.
Would the sites featuring BDSM, non-violent sexual "aberrance" or homosexual
practices, which many would also profess to find offensive, come under
similar scrutiny in the future on this basis?
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
How is it possible to criminalise people for possessing images of "violence"
or "sexual violence" when so much material of this nature exists in the
media of TV, film and even video games? To suggest an issue of context here
is arbitrary and subjective; sexual gratification is in the eye of the
beholder and this is in effect creating victimless "thought crimes". One of
the most famous scenes in film history depicts a woman being stabbed in the
shower (i.e. in "Psycho"); I can watch this film on the mainstream classic
movies channels, but if I attempted to view this scene on the internet, I
might be sent to jail under the new proposals? This goes against all ideas
of justice and common-sense.
If the public are so much in abhorrence of violence, why do such graphic
depictions of it persist in so many lucrative cinema releases? How
hypocritical to then demand that citizens who seek out such material on the
internet, whether seeking "sexual gratification" or not, be criminalised.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such
material?
This is a totally obnoxious question. If the government are to introduce
legislation criminalising ordinary people in this way then it must make a
clear and reasoned case why people should NOT be in possession of such
material and why it is therefore necessary to remove their freedoms of
speech and thought. The onus should not be on the individual to justify why
they are in possession of any consensual material, even if some may find it
distasteful; they are exercising those said freedoms.
5. Which option do you prefer?
Do nothing.
6. Why do you think this option is best?
See answers to 1,2,3 and 4.
7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
The penalties suggested in the document do not cover a satisfactory range of
options; there should be NO PENALTY WHATSOEVER for victimless "thought
crimes" involving concensual material, where no culpable harm to other
individuals or society at large has occured; this virtually covers the range
of "offences" proposed in this proposal. However, if a person knowingly or
willfully disseminates adult internet content of an "extreme" nature to
children, then this might be considered an offence, alongside existing
legisation.
On a final note, it would be completely wrong and unjust to subject
"offenders" to the same strictures and shame as those involved with child
pornography, as there is no moral equivalence (note my comments in answer
1). There would be a human cost in terms of peoples jobs, families, homes
and possibly even their lives (suicides?), that would last long after any
public shaming and vindictive prosecution had taken place. This is not
natural justice and has the potential to cause serious harm.
The government has much better things to do for the benefit of citizens than
persist with these most illiberal, authoritarian and unnecessary proposals,
which do not stand up to reasoned scrutiny. The law of this land should be
based upon justice, not moral prejudice.
|
