Opinion

Thank you for your recent postal reply, in regard to the proscription order of the "Satisfaction Channel" in which you confirm
that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport intends to pursue. Although I accept that legally you are not required to release a statement about such an order, I would hope you might consider the point that as my choice whether or not to subscribe to this service is now under serious threat, this may well be a restriction of my rights to Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Act, and also the Freedom of Expression of the particular broadcaster, therefore I really *ought* to have been given the opportunity to complain about such an action.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right under the HRA and restrictions must therefore surely be provably and demonstrably necessary, and indeed Lord Bingham said this in a famous speech the text of which is available on the internet at web URL: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1998/issue1/bingham1.html

The implications of the Human Rights act indicate that any such restrictions as may be allowed for in the exhaustive list of exceptions can only be imposed only after the strictest of justification, and proof of necessity, and I wonder if this really is the case here.

Given that similar material is allowed on video, to the material the "Satisfaction Channel" broadcasts, I have to ask if the imposition of such a draconian order (which could well result in the imprisonment of people for transgression) really is necessary and justified ?

If it is, what is the justification ?

By justification, what seek an answer to is:  How many people would be harmed by the content of this and similar channels, and what form would that harm take ? It is my assertion that if the justification for proscription (and therefore censorship) of the channel were real, so would harm caused by the content, be manifestly real and demonstrable. I assert that no such harm has been shown to occur, especially as the sort of material broadcast by the "Satisfaction Channel" is now allowed on video at R18 classification. It is also my assertion that lack of such evidence of harm, whilst still proceeding with the proscription order, or
recommending proscription orders for other similar channels, is an unjustified restriction of Article 10 freedom of expression, and I object most strongly to this.

If it really is necessary to proscribe this and other services, I ask again for justification as to necessity in a democratic society, after principles of tolerance, pluralism and broad-mindedness have been properly considered. I also ask whether complete prohibition of the service is proportional to the alleged harm, evidence of which in any case never seems to have been properly supplied...

I once again await the justification for censorship which I have sought for so long. If the necessity for proscription was so overwhelming, the harm which would otherwise occur if the action was not taken, would be EASY for you show really happens, and statistics could easily be supplied by those who seek to impose restrictions.

I maintain that these orders are still imposed because people such as the Daily Mail, Beyer, Whitehouse, et al, simply don't think they should be allowed. Such opinion isn't justification for restriction of my free choice in a so called free society.

The truth is no one in authority has ever explained to me, (or shown me evidence of) the real harm or likely harm caused by such channels being available in the UK so I can only assume that such censorship is an unfair restriction on my rights to decide for myself, under Article 10 freedom of expression.

Surely it ought not to be for me to plead why I should be free to subscribe to certain foreign television services should I wish to, but incumbent on the authorities to justify unequivocally exactly why that freedom needs to be taken from me.

I can confirm that a recommendation for proscription was sent to the department for Culture, Media and Sport in May 1999. At the time there was some uncertaintly about whether the existing Proscription Order would also cover Satisfaction Channel. Investigation of the details of the two services went on for some time. The DCMS has decided to persue an order against Satisfaction Channel.

Because it was not clear that the recommendation would stand, we did not issue a press release at the time and it is of course up to the DCMS whether or not to announce when an order is sought.

Perhaps I should add that there is no requirement for us to release statements about recommendations for proscription. We do so in the interests oif public awareness not as part of any consultation or appeals procedure.

Yours sincerely,
John Stables,

Programme Manager.

Scottish Women Against Pornography

It`s on the subject of porn I`m writing. I live in Scotland and while it`s still a part of Britain and the UK we now have our own parliament which governs devolved matters like law and social justice etc. It`s just like the UK parliament it doesn`t bother to consult with Mr and Mrs Joe Public but every two bit pressure whose membership is less than double figures can rule the roost over our democratically ( Though far from democratic ) elected leaders. If you go to : www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/cpg-men.htm which should take you to The Sottish Parliaments cross Party Group on" Mens Violence Against Women And Children " where two of those appointed advisors are Catherine Harper and Joan Skinner from something called " Scottish Women Against Pornography"!

What the fuck is SWAP? And more importantly what`s it doing advising the parliaments CPG group on Mens violence Against Women And Children? What they saying ? The Playboy channels` the same as the stuff Gary Glitter was looking at? No doubt they blame Big John Holmes for the holocaust. Here`s simple half witted Scot from the mean streets of life thinking all this violence against innocent people was down to the fact that the establishment was totally gutless about getting tough with rapists , paedophiles and other dead wood, but no it`s all down to porn. No doubt SWAP consider the likes of FHM and Maxim to be hard core porn too.

Police Raid Warning

I dont want to give my name or address, suffice it to say I have serious criminal convictions for pornography, i.e. possession of an obscene article for gain, namely animal sex, (Bizarre International), SM (Pain,Slavesex etc), shitting (Sperrgebiet, Grenzbereich), and rape (A US firm called Scorpion), I have been to prison and I can prove the following  but due to the amount of money made by porno dealers I dont think I will name any of them. Suffice to say that I have contacts within the Obscene Publications Squad at Charing Cross, Agar Street, London. The same
people who did Your Choice.

The reason for my email is that i have inside information about police raids on PUNTERS! They can call up any PUNTER and make him give evidence in court! They can't do you unless you are in possession of child porn, but imagine your whole life being torn apart, losing your job, friends and wife, when you appear in open court telling how you purchased ILLEGAL PORNOGRAPHIC  MATERIAL from the guy/gal in the dock, they can make you do this and read your name and address out, you may think I am a nutter but some PUNTERS dont have a clue about the consequences of their hobby, and porno dealers wont tell them!

This came from the lips of an Obscene Publications Intelligence Officer! they know the law inside out, also I found out a lot of porno dealers are going to be done but dont do the crime unless you can do the time! they know the score and dont
give a toss about the PUNTER only their money!

First of all it must be made clear that we are not talking about legal hardcore here. There is nothing to get worried about for the vast majority of customers.

Surely the police cannot be allowed to encourage the concept of lynch mob justice and vigilantism as a way to achieve an aim. If naming a person innocent of any crime leads to loss of job etc then surely this can be considered as an unusual punishment contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights. If the authorities want to make possession of obscene material into an offence they should get the law changed properly.

In the meantime I retain a degree of faith and maintain scepticism that the police will descend to such depths.

Please find enclosed letter from Worcester Trading Standards, concerning Taboo Web Site, and the selling of R18 videos. As l have been in the sex business for a fair time now we feel that we would like to have ago at fighting this on certain points of law. If anybody out there has any paperwork to do with this, could they please contact me ASAP so that we can get a case going and a good fight in the courts. The outcome of this will not only affect me but the rest of the trade, and the selling of R18 videos from sex shops and their web sites.

You can e.mail me at tony@taboo.co.uk or ring the shop on Kidderminster 01562 865986

Dear Mr Tozer

VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT 1984

With reference to our telephone conversation, of the 2nd November 2001, concerning the sale of videos on the internet.

This service received a complaint that you are selling R18 Videos on the Internet. Section 12 of the above act, states that "where a classification certifcate issued in respect of a video work states that no video recording containing that work is to be supplied other than in a licenced sex shop, a person who at any place other than in a sex shop for which a licence is in force under the relevant enactment, supplies a video recording containing the work, or offers to do, is guilty of an offence unless the supply is, or would if it took place be, an exempted supply".

On the 7th September 2001, we ordered two videos that were advertised on your web page, these were received on the 12 september 2001, both of which are R18.

Therefore, as possible offences may have been committed, it is now necessary to interview you regarding this matter. This would be a formal tape-recorded interview in accordance with The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

In view of the above, may l suggest that you contact me within the next 14 days to arrange a convenient date.

Yours Sincerely

T J Blanchard
Enforcement Officer, Worcestershire county council
tblanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk

 

Just a note to tell you that it is a pity you've nothing better to spend public money on than the harassment of web sites selling adult videos to UK residents who are obviously old enough to but them, because they have access to credit card, and who could buy them from web sites abroad with no interference from the law, or customs, or postage etc. Please remember, these videos are NOT OBSCENE or they could not be legally sold, anywhere in the country.

You are obviously part of the censorship machinery of the United Kingdom, a machine that has NEVER yet proved itself to be necessary....

You, as part of a public authority are required to consider the European Convention on Human Rights, now part of British law, which clearly states that amy restriction of freedom of expression on people such as Mr. Tozer, MUST BE necessary and STRICTLY justified. I therefore ask you to tell me how this restriction, which also limits and inhibits my right to choose to purchase a video from Mr. Tozer, really is necessary.. IE Indirectly, you have imposed a restriction upon me, one which I strongly resent, and object to and a restriction which I DEMAND as a free citizen of the United Kingdom, be properly justified.

That the law may be interpreted in a particular way, in instances such as this, may not be the prime consideration... Is what you are doing justified according to proven harm ?

It is a pity you cannot find a better purpose to put public money to, than enforcement of draconian, outdated laws which if properly tested
would be very likely to fall foul of the Human Rights Act, because they restrict people without good reason.

Please, justify to me, your action against Mr Tozer, and the action in limiting my choice whether to purchase an adult video from him. You are required to do this, as you are a public authority, and such justification is required by the Human Rights Act.

I believe that if your actions really are unjustified, YOU as an individual are personally responsible. At least history has held it to be so. Please therefore be sure that the restriction of freedom of expression you impose on people such as Mr. Tozer, really are fair and justified, and absolutely necessary. That is to say, that I believe that YOU PERSONALLY are required by the HRA to say significantly more than merely: " I was just doing my job" and "I was upholding the law"

Yours faithfully

Shaun,

Fighting Back

I sent the following to uk-mail-abuse@yahoo-inc.com. It may inconvenience this "vigilante" at least. I'm happy for you to paste it on the website discussion. Maybe you could suggest that everyone mail the various e-mail suppliers detailing the accounts this person is using to threaten ordinary people etc.

Hi,

The following e-mail address e-mails several people who are proprietors, or administrators of websites selling adult-oriented material (which is legal in the UK, and not breaking any laws whatsoever) "ordering" them to shut down their websites. They also threaten them with invasion and closure of their premises, and seizure of goods/stock/assets by various institutions if they do not comply. I feel this is an abuse of the terms and conditions of the e-mail service you supply and as such would ask that you investigate and prevent the person who self-proclaims that he/she is the Internet Vigilante

internetvigilantes@yahoo.com

Yours sincerely,

An open-minded individual who seeks to live and let live, as long as the law is not broken.

May God Bless Nutters

Actually, we did have a lengthy correspondence with the Internet Vigilantes when they first approached us months ago. We found that we shared many of the same concerns regarding the accesability of hard core images on the internet, and the ease at which children could obtain such material.  We believe that ultimately the responsibility rests with parents, but that adult traders and webmasters also have to accept some level of responsibility.

The internet is like a very big city filled with adventure playgrounds, shops, video arcades, and sex shops. There are nice people who want to help kids with their maths homework, and people with less honerable intentions.  No parent in their right mind would allow their kids to go wandering in Soho late at night alone. Yet parents do allow their kids to do the virtual equivalent.

The internet vigilantez believe that they can protect children by closing down or limiting the amount of adult material on the internet.  We believe a better way to protect children is by educating parents on the nature of the material available to children. Giving parents the skills/resources/software needed to allow their kids to surf the net safely hurts no one. Shutting down supply is doomed to failure because there will always be a demand.

Either way, both the IV and us at StrawberryX share the same common concerns even if our strategies are contradictory.

I'm sure the IV don't agree with what we do as a business, the same as I don't agree with their methods. But 'hey' it's a democracy (sometimes), and that allows anyone who wishes to get on their soapbox once in a while.

You may like to mention that everytime a vigilante style group attacks a website and it appears on a bulletin board or news board like melonfarmers, the publicity generated creates sales revenue for the person being attacked. We saw an increase in sales when we were first attacked by the IV, then again when we got our Which? award, then again when it was taken away.

May God bless these Nutters, they're good for business!

Lee

We would just like to add a couple of points.

Firstly in regards to Mr Enis' remarks. Strawberry X, upon our 'notification of illegal activity' e-mail, imediately made arrangements to comply to current UK law and outlined in detail their proposals. They did not retort with threats and foul remarks, as many webowners have in the past. They appreciated the problem and attempted to rectify it, although not entirely.

The changes they made, coupled with the fact their site contains zero offensive images or language, was deemed sufficient for our efforts to be concentrated elsewhere - on cowboy traders who do not give a damn what their websites sell, the laws they are breaking or the children/easily offended who may stumble upon their sites.

In response to Lees comments, well his comments quite simply echo what I have laid out in the above statement. Your readers must understand that their are many more 'Lees' out there and your webpage is, as I'm sure you'll agree' loaded in anti-censorship comments/feedback and only outlines around 5% of cases we investigate. We even get many reports from concerned on-line retailers of 'adult goods', reporting child porn and obscene material...we treat their reports with the same effort and equality of any given member of the public!

IV

Dear Ms. Dobson,

I understand that you are harrasing retailers of "adult videos" in the name of "protecting children", so I thought I'd let you know what I think about it.

Please don't "protect" my children, as I am perfectly capable of protecting them MYSELF, and I certainly don't want the likes of you to undermine their freedom of choice in what they wish to view when they are older thank you very much. Personally I believe THEY need some kind of protection from interfering PEOPLE LIKE YOU, who would rob them of their future freedoms, or the freedoms they should have.

What we need is a method of verifying age, say by the use of a credit card, not the prohibition of mail order of adult films, which people can legally order over the web from abroad anyway..

All you are doing is giving business to foreign suppliers, rather than legitimate licensed retailers here... You should be campaigning for sensible restrictions, which whilst protecting children, do not impinge on the freedom of adults. Not all adults can visit sex shops. Some for example are disabled. Others are simply too embarrassed.... It simply isn't fair that they are so restricted..... It could be that the retailers in any case have _very_ good grounds for complaint, given that foreign retailers are permitted to send such videos in, whilst they are not, and also that the restriction imposed on them, isn't compatible with the Human Rights Act, as there is in fact NO evidence of any harm occasioned to children, purchasing such videos through the post... Remember restrictions of this kind have to show "a pressing social need" and be proportionate.

Your Email address appears on the Melon Farmers anti censorship web site.

Regards, and thank you for your time in reading this.
Shaun.

 

Dear Ms Dobson.

I recently contacted yourself enquiring about the "UK protection of children online" organisation that you are apparently claiming to be a part of. As I was asking general information about your societies aims, and how may others join, I was very surprised that you didn't take the trouble to email me back. Most organisations I know of, particularly those trying to enforce their moral views onto others, seem only too happy to reply to enquries from the public.

It therefore occurs to me that this so called "online protection of children" is simply a bogus title you are using in your harrasing emails to adult sex shops, to make it sound like your empty threats have some weight to them.

Now I would like to point out a couple of things here, firstly although it is still technically against the law to supply R18 videos by mail order within the UK, it is not illegal to mail order adult videos from abroad, just as long as their content is broadly in line with UK R18 material. This clause in the VRA that currently prevemts UK retailers from selling their videos by post is outdated and most certainly will be re-addressed in the near future. Although Trading Standards may choose to keep enforcing this law for the moment, it is highly likely that they will choose to turn a blind eye to these activities, as importing from abroad increases. Because at the end of the day, it is ultimately a fruitless exercise.

For example, Sunday trading was illegal up until about 10 years ago, but it was eventually legalised as there were so many shops doing it anyway, trading standards were forced to acknowledge the law was wrong and was virtually unenforcable owing to the amount of shops opening regardless.

If you want to be remembered as an idiot for posterity, then just keep trying to harras adult traders the way you are. Ultimately you will be unsuccesful when the law is readressed, and in the meantime all your efforts will acheive is to force the trade into the black market, where there are no rules on permissable content. Ity will be therefore interesting to hear what you hope to achieve?

If you would take the time to email me back I would be most interested to hear your views on these points.

Thankyou and Best wishes

Simon

 

Dear Simon,

Thank you for your e-mail and apologies if I did not contact you previously, I thought I had.

Firstly, our organisation is no-departmental, non political and is not affiliated to any authority. We are volunteers, from all walks of life, who have created a point of contact for parents, concerned about illegal activity on the internet.

Set up in 1998, we have dealt with 342 reports of obscene material or illegal activity, operating via the internet.

I don't feel it is my place to comment on individual cases or the specifics of current UK alw, your concerns on these aspects would be better directed to your local MP.

As a footnote, we know that the Government is currently preparing a tougher stance on the importation of video works from abroard (e.g.customs are to be given more powers to seize contentious material) and is also working to impose stricter fines for individuals indulging in illegal activity via the internet and indeed, as of March next year all UK websites will be obliged to comply to a broadcasting standards watchdog (i.e. bringing the net in line with current TV broadcasting standards regulations).

Best regards and I hope that this answers some of your points.
Helen Dobson

Mediawatch UK

I've just been scanning the Mediawatch report/charter or whatever it is supposed to be. It seems to me that whilst the crime figures have been increasing over the last 50 years or so Mediawatch a.k.a. The National Viewers & Listeners Assoc. have pretty much had their own way. I mean, there really hasn't been that much sex, violence, bad language etc. on TV/Radio until very recently, even then the violence is seriously hacked and we still can't see a stiffy on telly let alone penetrative sex. The BBFC have been doing their job too, protecting children and adults alike with censorial cuts and age ratings. All in all I don't think we've ever been exposed to anything 'harmful'.

The Mediawatch Argument

Their argument seems to have shifted away from the sexual to concentrate on violence. Using crime figures that show a steady increase in violent crime over the last 50 years really is frightening but lets face it, it's not TV and Radio that are responsible for this, is it? I think not, after all TV only reflects the current state of society, anything beyond this is fiction and we can all distinguish reality from fiction can't we? A decline in 'standards' maybe evident, but can we really blame what we watch or listen to for this? Again, I think not. No, the blame, if any, rest firmly on the shoulders of society in general and a lack of real leadership from our Government.

In todays society we can't chastise our children for fear of prosecution on the grounds of child abuse. There's no way for parents to discipline their children anymore and so the kids just run amok. Drug and alcohol abuse, vandalism, crime etc. are just the symptom of a society that is too scared to do the 'right' thing for fear of being prosecuted.

What's the Real Cause?

Why has violent crime increased so much? I would suggest we look at the levels of poverty, unemployment and drug abuse over the last 50 years rather than what we've seen on TV or at the cinema. I thought it was pretty well known that most muggings and opportunistic crime are perpetrated by drug users desperate for money to get another 'fix'? Of course the Mediawatch bunch couldn't watch a reality programme or documentary on such subjects for fear of being exposed to something nasty, like the truth!

For many years now I have felt that any prohibition, censorship etc. just adds to the problem rather than solving it. What our Government sees fit to ban will just be sourced via other means. This goes for anything and everything, porn, drugs, you name it, if the Government ban it, it will just end up on the black market. We all know what happened in the USA when they introduced a ban on alcohol, overnight millions of innocent people who enjoyed the odd tipple became criminals and organised crime flourished. Would Hollywood ever have produced a Gangster movie if prohibition had not been introduced? Would organised crime be such big business if gambling, drugs and prostitution were legal?

I know this is an over simplified model but these issues are at the heart of the problem. These things need to be resolved by society not by legislation. I believe the Government think they are dealing with a problem by prohibiting the supply when in fact they are just sweeping it under the carpet. I wonder if they have considered the revenue that they could earn from taxation on the sale of cannabis and other substances or, the licensing of prostitutes? Of course they wouldn't see this as the civilised solution (although it probably is the only civilised solution) so they resort to the usual ban it and forget it approach.

Mediawatch with Mother

As for Mediawatch, I'm sorry the World is the way it is. The streets aren't lined with cotton wool and candyfloss doesn't grow on trees. People get angry and fight and swear. We've been like this for thousands of years and there's fuck all they can do about it. At least between 6am and 9pm they can watch TV and listen to the radio without fear of being upset by anything nasty. After 9pm I suggest they turn to the Disney channel and let the rest of us watch programmes for grown-ups.

A Bit on The Side

While we're on the subject of TV, I'd like to know how the ITC maintain a policy of 'softcore only' on UK 'adult' subscription channels. Don't they have to provide proof of harm to censor things these days?

The Last Retort

These people make me sick. The Mediawatch argument is so full of holes I'm surprised they haven't sunk back into Middle England. Their pseudo-liberal 'instil a sense of community into the young offender' bollox requires a community the person would want to be part of and, some sort of moral responsibility the guy obviously doesn't have to commit the crime in the first place! What is certain to me is that watching the sort of wishy washy violence we get to see on UK TV is not what made these kids the way they are, the System has simply failed them.

Regards

Anti-Internet Vigilante

Ben Dover: Cumming of Age 2 has been subjected to 1:20s of cuts required to sex in public places for "R18" on the grounds of public indecency.

The BBFC justified their decision as follows

As you know, we can't ignore the law. Public indecency is an offence under UK law and the BBFC cannot classify material if an offence occurred during its production (as with depictions of gay group sex). When nudity (or sexual acts) are portrayed outdoors in the UK we always seek - and usually receive - an assurance from the filmmakers that the public indecency laws have not been infringed (i.e. that members of the public could not have and did not witness the filming). However, in this case - where sex was filmed taking place on a train and in a car - Ben Dover was unable to present us with such an assurance and so we had no alternative but to cut. Our policy on

 

To the BBFC

Our rights to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10, of the European Convention on Human Rights now part of UK law seems to be ignored with impunity... This implies a requirement that CENSORSHIP is kept to an absolute minimum, and only imposed where absolutely necessary, but I don't believe this is the case at all.

In any case the restriction of group gay sex, has been found to be a serious Human Rights Violation, and people involved in a recent high profile case have been offered compensation by the Home Office. If the law relating to group gay sex is a human Rights violation, then it is quite possible that censorship of such scenes may also be a Human Rights violation, when such censorship only applies to films made in the UK, rather than elsewhere...

You are a public authority. You can therefore argue that the framework of law under which you must operate, perhaps contravenes the Human Rights Act, and causes you to restrict freedom of expression (enshrined in Article 10) unnecessarily. Which of course is a violation of that act, in itself.

The framework of law AFAIK, wouldn't excuse you from doing anything which was found to unecessarily impinge on people's Human Rights.....So perhaps the correct approach is to argue that the law ought to be changed, to make clear that what is against the law in real life doesn't necessarily have to be censored on video...

I have a problem with any regime, that needs a formal up front guarantee that a law wasn't broken. IE Guilt, until innocence is proven...It's *supposed* to be the other way around isn't it ?

As far as I am concerned the whole current censorship regime breaks the law.The law of Human Rights, specifically "Freedom Of Expression", where quite harmless and perfectly legal (to do) scenes are still cut, in consideration of another law (The Obscene Publications Act) which is a human rights violation because it specifically does not specify what depictions are harmful, why they are harmful, and there fore why they need to be cut (IE censored) at all. If the harm was so real and manifest (which we all know it isn't) , then the law could specify this, without ambiguity, so everyone knows where the lines MUST be drawn.

You can argue that this is a matter for politicians, but I assert that it is the duty of the BBFC (as a public authority) to bring to the attention of Parliament the unjustness of some of the restrictions it has to impose upon people like me, owing to laws which are clearly out of date, and unjust. Eg the OPA, which in my view  is in serious conflict with the HRA.

Censorship and freedom of expression, is supposed to be limited only by cases of manifest harm. Even the Home Office told me that is the
case.

I can't see that pictures of sex apparently filmed in public are harmful in any way at all. It is the CENSORSHIP, rather than laws restricting sexual activity in public which I believe is a violation of my human rights. As far as I am aware, when this film was being made, no one complained of public decency being outraged, did they ? If they did not then as far as I am concerned no law was broken, because public decency was NOT then outraged.

Regards,
Shaun.

To Shaun

We understand what you're saying but, nonetheless, it is NOT the Board's role to challenge the law. Rather, we are obliged to work within its framework. As for the Human Rights Act, the Board already takes this into account when making decisions. Contrary to the impression you appear to have, the European Convention on Human Rights does not in fact prevent member states of the EU from imposing such restrictions on freedoms as are judged to be necessary. Furthermore, these restrictions may in practice lead to different standards being applied in different countries. There is no doubt in our mind that the 'current censorship regime' (by which you mean the BBFC, the OPA and other relevant legislation) is not in any sense 'illegal' under the Convention. It is a common libertarian fallacy to regard 'Europe' as being opposed to all censorship and in favour of breaking down barriers accross all countries. However, as Nigel Wingrove found out in the VISIONS OF ECSTASY case, the EU in fact recognises the existence of differences in national standards, and so too does the European Convention on Human Rights.

You also seem to assert that there is only a legal problem if somebody complains about an act of public indecency. However, this is simply not the case. The offence of 'Indecent Exposure' is a common law misdemeanour and involves the commission of an act which outrages public decency in a public place in such a way that more than one person sees or is at least able to see the act. The legal test here is 'possibility' not 'likelihood' but if the onscreen evidence and/or written assurances provide convincing grounds to believe that there was hardly any possibility of the act being seen then it may be possible to give the work the benefit of the doubt. The film crew do not count, as consent by the onlookers removes the mischief.

We know that you will not agree with our position on this but hope we have provided at least some background to the current legal situation, as advised by our lawyers.

Dear Mr Taylor,

I enjoyed visiting your site and also outraged by the antics of the so called "vigilante nutter", it seems that he visit your site often and the more you write about him the more the damage he does, it seems you are fuelling his ambition. This guy is a sadist and gets some kind of a strange perversion out of making other peoples lives a misery. Have you considered NOT reporting the activity of this nutter, maybe if we all ignore his exploit he would realise that is action is not making any impact and hopefully go away?

 

Thanks Highlander,

I guess that to some extent I may be guilty as charged, however it is a little unlikely that outraging the Melon Farmers can contribute much to the motivation of a nutter.

However I feel that opting to suppress selected news items would do more harm than good. It is a slippery slope towards spin and politician speak. Anyway, it goes against the grain to censor the news. I prefer to keep things more honest in the hope that the Melon Farmers can be taken at face value. The Melon Farmers may be a bit of a crusade but I believe that this is best served by the avoidance of spin, sponsorship, advertising, affiliations and traditional campaigning.

Change is best achieved by making enough people aware of the silliness of censorship so that society itself will change en-masse. Hopefully those that persist in thinking that they can deny the harmless pleasures of life to their fellow man will then become the shunned outcasts of a more tolerant and decent society.

Besides all that, I think that the label "nutter" neatly encapsulates a dismissive, slightly contemptuous view of our more worthless, stupid, and ineffective opponents and it therefore amuses me to report on their campaigns with such flowery mocking terminology.... it gets across what I think of them!

The Melon Farmers

 

Letters to a Nutter

To the Internet Vigilante Nutter

What sort of idiots waste their time hunting down poor internet traders offering legal merchandise because of some inane, pointless, easily circumvented, rule which prevents the sale of R18 videos by mail order?

I can purchase any kind of sex aid including whips, lube, thongs, gags, peep-hole knickers, all manner of dildos, condoms, blow-up dolls and vibrating fanny's via mail order but not a video.

Restricting the sale of such items is a form of censorship and as such proof of harm would be required, under the terms of the Human Rights Act, to censor or ban such an item. As these products are freely available to purchase on the high street they cannot be banned and therefore they can't be harmful so how could this particular clause in the R18 legislation actually hold up in court?

Preventing one means of sale of a perfectly legal product is absolutely ridiculous, its law for law's sake.

You lot are fools. If you don't like porn don't buy it. But leave those that do like it alone to do as they please, please!

SEX IS THE MOST NATURAL THING IN THE WORLD. NONE OF US WOULD BE HERE WITHOUT OUT IT! IF YOU THINK IT'S DIRTY YOU SHOULD SEE A COUNSELLOR. GET SOME THERAPY - ITS ONLY SEX.

Censorship Chat from Australia

Just a little bit of international chat.

A year or 2 ago, the French film Romance was banned due to the OFLC's (our censor) stupid guidelines inposed under the conservative Howard government. The distributor appealed and the film was released uncut under R (18).

That set a precedent that has let the classic Japanese flick In The Realm of the Senses pass uncut in R also.Since then 'mainstream hardcore' seems to be gaining momentum. As you noted Brilliat's new film has Kerry Fox performing explicit fellatio on camera.

Well, a new Australia flick has joined the artistic hardcore bandwagon - not that that's a bad thing - in a film called the Monkey's Mask. Not an overly sex chargedfilm from what I gather, but interting that something that might have been really controversial 2 years ago is passed R for "adult themes" - no mention of scene which include explicit penis grabbing and lesbian sex scenes. (Though its original 'consumer advice' was 'medium level sex scenes' and was replaced by 'adult themes' on appeal)

Although I highly doubt this is the beggining of a new liberation of our censor - we need a High Court decision like BBFC did to liberate them. BUT, being optimistic if this government is booted out at the coming election, things might become better. Salo used be uncut under R until this government came to power and the tories pushed for it to be banned eventually. Tighter restrictions on porn now too - there have been some REALLY stupid decisions lately.

For instance the guidelines read for the X catagory - your R18 - "no depiction of violence". This is used to prevent sexual violence, which in understandable. However, there is NO room for interpretation it seems. A Jenna Jameson porn vehicle called Dream Quest was banned because of this guideline. You know in porn films how there are linking scenes? Well the male star was a warrior kind of guy, who was trying to rescue the princess (and subsequently get laid). Before finding her he has a badly choregraphed sword fight with 2 guards, and bops one of them on the head with the handle of his sword knocking the guard out. Even though this rather comical scene would normally be encompassed in a PG rating, the film was banned because of these depictions of violence! And there was no sex going on whatsoever!

Internet Vigilante Nutter

I thought you may all be interested in the following message that I received recently

...The Internet Vigilantes would like to wish all Melon Farmers a happy new year and we look forward to liasing further next year.

We really appreciate the website, it has proved very fruitfull in our search for material/individuals/weblinks to succesfully 'challenge'.

Where else would we have found that Film Four broadcast an unclassified film, superb, TV channels now fall under our remit with the advance in technologies and webTV!

2000 - Year of the Vigilante:

• 27 websites under investigation for illegal trading, including Primetime
• 3 webpages closed for illegal hardcore pornography
• C5 warned about their conduct
• Film Four under investigation from the ITC for broadcasting an unclassified film (cheers for the tip off lads!)

...and all this with no internet regulator!

We simply can't wait until the Governments OFCOM department comes in to operation and we can get to work on the actual website content and broadcasting!

Incedently, our previous cause of action was to approach the website owners initially...this will not be the case of 2001, our reports will be forwarded to trading standards and or the Police and their respective action will come without warning.

Again, have a good new year!

IV - keepin' the UK clean