Opinion

Attack on Violence

Referring to the article A Tough Attack on Violence

I thought your comments about Children's television programmes causing bullying were specious to say the least.

As someone who was regularly bullied at school when I was there over thirty years ago, I can tell you that CENSORSHIP is not the answer, because then television was much more strictly regulated than it is now. Yet having children of my own at school, (including a mildy autistic [Aspbergers] boy in a main stream secondary school) I am CERTAIN, that bullying isn't anywhere near the problem it used to be.

Fostering open mindedness, pluralism, and an creating an environment where people are encouraged to be more accepting of people who are different, and perhaps even somewhat contraversial, is the way to reduce violent bullying children, not the imposition of censorship.

Some of the most repressive societies in the world censor their people. I hope we are not becoming one of them.

Censorship detracts from the real issues, that politicians need to address. Of course censorship is cheap, but solving the real issues costs money. But it is a cheap cop out, and generally achieves nothing. Look exactly why others might be bullied ? Is it because bigotry and hatred still rule ? Such problems are solved by open mindedness, the exact opposite of censorship. Please don't advocate cheap diversions of "something must be done(tm)" censorship. Wiser people are now seeing such "solutions" for what they are.

Finally politicians should learn to see themselves as the guardians of our freedom, not our repressors, and censorship is the first tool of the repressor. Censorship should be a last resort, imposed only when absolutely necessary.

I believe people don't want uncessary censorship as a matter of routine. I certainly don't. Give me the freedom from it, if you please.

Thank you for your time. I hope you can address the issues properly.

NoSense from AdSense

Received from Google reporting on the Melon Farmers re their AdSense programme

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. After reviewing your application, our program specialists have found that the website currently associated with your account does not comply with our policies. Therefore, we're unable to accept you into Google AdSense at this time.

We did not approve your application for the reasons listed below. If you are able to resolve these issues, please feel free to reply to this email for reconsideration when you have made the changes.

Issues:

• Inappropriate language -
• Adult content

Further detail:

Inappropriate language: We've found that your website contains content that isn't in compliance with our program policies. We don't allow websites with excessive profanity or potentially offensive content to participate in Google AdSense. Please review our policies (https://www.google.com/adsense/policies) for a complete list of site content not allowed on web pages.

Adult content: Currently, only AdWords ads that we classify as family-safe are available through the AdSense program. We've found your site to be predominantly adult or mature in nature. Therefore, we're unable to display relevant ads on your site. Please review our policies (https://www.google.com/adsense/policies) for a complete list

 

I was extremely surprised and disappointed to read on the Melon Farmers web site that you have refused them, as if their site were a porn site.

Melon Farmers is a perfectly serious and respectable site dedicated to issues of censorship, especially in the United Kingdom. While this mail comes from my private e-mail address, I frequently access the Melon Farmers site from my office computer at my workplace, a British university, and would be perfectly happy to defend the propriety of doing so if challenged, on the basis of its relevance to some of my research interests.

A site dedicated to serious, if opinionated, discussion of censorship obviously cannot function without reference to the material which is subject to censorship. I would urge you to reconsider this rather oppressive decision.
 

Google AdSense specialists review websites for a variety of criteria. These include, but are not limited to, appropriate content, clear navigation, and the site's potential value to the AdSense program and the user experience.

Because we respect the confidentiality of all publishers, we cannot disclose any additional details of our partnerships with other sites.

We appreciate your taking the time to offer us this feedback and encourage you to continue to let us know how we can improve Google AdSense. As AdSense is still a young program, new features are under consideration and your feedback is very helpful.

Please feel free to email us at adsense-support@google.com if you have additional questions or concerns. For technical support, please email adsense-tech@google.com.

Good Riddance ITC

Hello ITC,

The latest complaint upheld by the ITC, against UK Living - about Sex Court is ridiculous. Given that the ITC doesn't really seem to differentiate standards wise between any of its licenced services, to bleat on about encrypted verses "open" channels is also ridiculous. I would also remind the ITC that UK Living IS an encrypted channel. If you don't believe that, try watching on Astra satellite without a sky subscription and box, say by using a European free to air satellite receiver. Truly unencrypted sky services can be watched on one of these receivers. If you do your research properly, you'll find that technically the encryption of UK Living, is just as strong, as any licensed adult service, and the only difference is that it is "bundled" with a package, rather than sold separately, or enabled separately. You could have asked UK living to disable such programs, UNLESS viewers specifically requested them, if they wish to show such things, but of course that would involve some creative thought by the ITC, something it doesn't seem to be good at. (The only thing the ITC has been good at, in my view, has been censorship, without proper justification of necessity)

I look forward to the END of the ITC, and the befuddled Broadcasting (imposition of) Standards (by censorship) Commission this year, and hopefully the END of the censorship madness and Human Rights violations (in my opinion at least) that freeborn people have had to suffer because of censorship, especially censorship resulting from ONE SINGLE VIEWER (probably a scout of the National Viewers and Listener's association/MediaWatch anyway) complaint.

As for "taste and decency" well, these are arbitrary and relative terms, which should have no place in regulations which restrict freedom of expression, which is now classed as a basic human right. If any of you human people who read this email, go on to work for Ofcom, please consider _very_ carefully, that censorship...

(save for a small class of material prohibited in the protection of Children Act, and The Cinematograph Act (Animals) )

...in a modern, free, multicultural, plural society is no longer acceptable by many people, and perhaps even the majority of people, as indicated by research at the British Board of Film Classification.

See: DON’ T TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD WATCH AT ‘18’ - PUBLIC TELL BBFC On the BBFC Internet web site.

The ITC also apparently ignored its own published research, which indicated that people should have a right to "view particularly sexually explicit material" When I put this to the Dept. Culture, Media and Sport officials they told me you'd already told them that the people you'd asked "didn't understand the question" How utterly arrogant and pompous that sounded to me. It was obvious you didn't get the answer you wanted, and therefore resorted to assertions that people could not understanding what was asked of them.

I can therefore only say, goodbye, and to be honest, Good riddance ITC!

Non Consensual Punishment

Responding to a conviction for lending S&M videos: Non Consensual Punishment

Just read the spanking case. I'm disgusted by our legal system when it come to such matters. I'm not into CP per se but, I thought the Spanner case was a complete travesty too.

I'm sure this is a Human Rights issue.  If this is part of a person's sexuality, what right has a court to decide that they are 'depraved'? What right has a court to decide 'to save them from their addiction' and class film of such activities as obscene? Indeed, why should giving a partner this type of pleasure be a criminal offence?

I've no idea how the ECHR could find in favour of the Government in the Spanner case. This is not a matter of 'National Appreciation' and how they could give the Government the right to interfere in anyone's sex life is astonishing. As far as I was aware, the Brits lead the world for S&M activity - surely then its well within the 'National Appreciation' to make these activities legal!

It's more than blatantly obvious from the depositions by S&M participants, that these activities are completely consensual and, if they ever felt they were being abused they would report the crime. What need is there for the judiciary to effectively classify S&M activity as malicious wounding or GBH?! Just who was this decision supposed to protect? The submissives didn't need it as their 'dom' won't go any further than they will allow or want...

This is just another example of 'the powers that be' dictating how they think people should behave. It is a blatant abuse of people's rights to enjoy their own sexuality in whatever way they see fit. It is obvious the pleasure people gain from these activities far outweighs the pain or harm which is caused. Indeed, what harm and damage is caused to a person's wellbeing through making them feel something is 'wrong' with their desires and expressions of their sexuality?

It is time the law stopped being used to repress all consensual sexual desires and activities whether in real life or on film.

Intense Hardcore Correspondence

Letter to the Guardian

Further to the short article in the Guardian’s Media Monkey on the 1st December, Kip Meek senior partner at Ofcom was reported to have revealed that he has been having “intense correspondence over whether the Communications Act's looser approach to standards should allow so-called R18 films to be shown on the box”. I can confirm that there has indeed been intensive correspondence with Ofcom concerning the possibilities of relaxation of the rules governing porn on TV as reported, but I would add that the discussion was centred on subscription only services not free-to-air channels. Although the issue will not officially be considered until next year, I think the question that we should now be asking is not “will Ofcom allow hardcore porn on subscription services”, but when?

To some this might sound a little incautious given that Ofcom have yet to take over regulatory responsibility from the Independent Television Commission (ITC), however a careful examination of the facts in this area leads to some surprising conclusions.

Firstly there is the fact that it is already legal to sell hardcore porn on video with more than 2200 hardcore R18 titles certified by the BBFC since 2000 and sold from more than 150 licensed shops throughout the country.

Then there are all the foreign hardcore porn channels that are already broadcasting into the UK. At least seven are actively marketed here with full-page adverts in all the popular satellite magazines. The Government banned many channels during the nineties, but since the BBFC relaxed its guidelines three years ago, there has been no attempt to ban any channel.

With such an abundant supply of hardcore now available it would be reasonable to ask the Government if they intend to ban any of these foreign broadcasts? The answer perhaps somewhat surprisingly is that the Culture minister is still “considering the matter” as she has been for the last three years. The truth is that the Government has decided to sit on the fence and let Ofcom sort it out. The Department of Culture Media and Sport will not even discuss the matter publicly (try writing to them).

So what is the view at Ofcom? Although understandably very non committal at this stage, both the chairman Lord Currie and the Chief Executive Stephen Carter have publicly stated that television regulation must be consistent, “joined up” and evidence based. It would be hard to imagine how a domestic ban on hardcore could be “joined up” with the position of the BBFC and virtually all of the regulators in continental Europe or how a ban could be considered to be evidence based given the total lack of any research that shows harmful effects. This last point was clearly demonstrated by the High Court in its ruling against the BBFC in 2000 finding that there was no reliable evidence of harm from porn.

Public opinion has often been a key factor in such matters in the past so what do the public think? Generally speaking people are less bothered by sex on TV these days. Recent surveys by the Broadcasting Standards Commission have repeatedly shown that more than three quarters of the population actually agree that particularly sexually explicit programs should be available on subscription channels to those who want to watch them. There is a small pro-censorship minority, but the vast majority are not really that interested in either subscribing or complaining.

The only serious opposition to deregulation has been the ITC. The ITC have always opposed the idea of hardcore on TV. Their arguments always eventually fall back on the well-used and trusty Broadcasting Act legal requirement that “nothing be broadcast that offends against taste and decency”. However the ITC will not provide opposition for much longer as Ofcom will replace them at the end of December. Not only that, but key parts of the Broadcasting Act are also being replaced. The legal requirement to enforce “taste and decency” at all times has been repealed by the new Communications Act in favour of applying “Generally Accepted Standards”. What standards are generally accepted has yet to be finalised, but there can be little doubt that viewers of subscription porn would generally accept hardcore or that the BBFC R18 classification is a generally accepted standard.

Undoubtedly there will be fierce debate over this issue next year. A few moral outrage headlines from the Daily Mail and some hand wringing from Media watch, but the end result is in little doubt. Whether we like it or not hardcore pornography does have a place on British television and that place is on adult subscription services.

Ofwatch is a new organisation formed to represent the interests of Adult subscription service viewers in the UK. www.ofwatch.org.uk

Portsmouth Coming of Age

 Based on an article from The Portsmouth Evening News

Fury as councillors agree to put hard-core sex shop close to family favourite McDonald’s

It’s in a busy spot in a favourite family shopping area. But soon the empty shop two doors away from a Mc Donald’s restaurant and near a bus stop used by children will be selling hardcore pornography. City councillors gave the go-ahead for the sex shop by just one vote. And today shops chiefs branded their decision ‘crazy’.

Apparently Ray Darker and Clive Sullivan (David Sullivan’s brother) were given permission to run the shop at 229/231 Commercial Road, this will be their 86th shop. The town centre manager Barry Walker was reported to have said, It is not the sort of thing or image we want when we are trying to revive the city centre. Shameful Conservative councillor Jezz Baker who was on the committee and voted against the shop said, This is a crazy decision. I am very concerned that youngsters will have access to hard-core pornographic filth.

A similar application 20 years ago by the same people was rejected. The council’s licensing committee approved the plan to open the shop by 5 votes to 4. No objections were made in time to be officially recorded, although the committee did accept 17 late letters of opposition.

 

To the Portsmouth Evening News:

I see from the News last Saturday that a licensed sex shop will now be opening in Portsmouth. A large modern city such as Portsmouth should provide outlets to cater for a wide range of tastes. There is a high demand for R18 video and DVD sold from such shops and the nearest similar shop is currently in Bournemouth. Portsmouth City Council should be congratulated on their decision.

Those who have concerns about the shops location should be reassured that children are not permitted inside such shops and that the frontage will undoubtedly be extremely discreet. It is unlikely that many children passing by will have the remotest idea of what is sold in the shop. The shop poses about as much risk to children as an off licence or betting shop.

Conservative Councillor Jezz Baker is out of touch with the modern world. “Filth” as he describes it, is now legally sold to tens of thousands of adults from more than 150 similar shops across the country. It would have been a shame if the citizens of Portsmouth had been denied the right to choose for themselves what they want to watch in the privacy of their own homes because of Councillor Baker.

As for Barry Walker saying that it is not the sort of thing or image that we want when we are trying to revive the city centre, I would suggest that it is exactly the sort of thing that is required, the customers who are likely to use the shop will not be three-headed monsters, they will be ordinary members of the public. I’m sure the shop will be hugely popular with a lot of people and provide something different that is likely to bring a lot of additional shoppers into the city centre. Those who do not like what is on sale in the shop simply need never go in.

Regulators Investigating Regulation

Re: The article at web address URL: http://www.bsc.org.uk/pdfs/research/Broadcasting Standards Regulation.pdf

In your latest "research" into content regulation published in the internet link above you say: Content which participants put into the ‘never acceptable’ bracket was, by and large, material which is proscribed by law in any case
(such as bestiality, pornography, ‘snuff’ movies).

I assume three separate types of material above.

So - since when is "pornography" proscribed (ie prohibited) by law ? Explicit material can be bought and sold which is classified "R18", explicit pornography on paper can legally bought and sold in magazines in any newspaper shop.

In fact, nowhere in British law is "pornography" mentioned at all! Don't you know that ?

In one of your previous explorations into attitudes you actually said the view was people should be allowed to watch particularly explicit depictions of sex if they wish

If "regulators" such as yourselves don't get their facts correct, then how on earth can we accept what they say ?

And I am not alone in believing that there should be subscription only, (or free, but the broadcaster has to be asked to enable the channel) R18 style explicit sex channels. To censor these from freeborn adults without proper proportionate justification is a human rights violation of freedom of expression, NOT just of the broadcaster, but of the viewer too.

By the way, interesting that you cite John Beyer of "MediaWatch" as an "expert". The only think he and his organisation are expert on in my view, is the promotion of unnecessary censorship and hysteria in the media. No one should be offended by what they don't have to see. IE shown on channels they never have to subscribe to.

In any case harm, rather than mere offence is the only justification for Human Rights restrictions, by imposing or advocating complete CENSORSHIP on people. I think you regulators would do well to realise this truth. That a majority of people might not want this or that is no reason for restriction of those that do.. The point which suggests this, in your "research" is therefore an irrelevance.

If regulators cannot get their facts correct, and properly consider the law, especially Human Rights law, how can we expect them to regulate fairly ?

I'd be most grateful if you would answer the concerns I express here.

admin@ofwatch.org.uk

To the BSC

 I have just read the research document from the BSC website titled "Broadcasting Standards Regulation" dated November 2003.

As many people including myself consider the BSC to be a source of reliable unbiased research, I was particularly concerned with certain aspects of this paper. In Appendix B it would appear that participants were shown video-taped interviews from John Beyer of Media Watch (a rightwing pro-censorship Christian organisation) and Humera Khan from the al-Nisa Society (an organisation of muslim women). Video interviews were also provided from five different broadcasters, but no representation was made on behalf of those in favour of less restriction and more freedom in what is broadcast.

So it was hardly suprising that: By contrast, few argued in favour of broadcasters' rights to freedom of expression. It could be that one reason for this was that participants were not easily able to determine what type of 'freedom of expression' regulation might inhibit - other than pornography or extreme violence, for example, which few wanted to see on television in any case. Their natural conclusion, therefore, was to assume that the balance was about right.

and might also help explain the confusion over the meaning of the word pornography and its legality: Content which participants put into the 'never acceptable' bracket was, by and large, material which is proscribed by law in any case (such as bestiality, pornography, 'snuff' movies)."

I would be most interested to know why it was considered necessary to present two pro-censorship arguments and no anti-censorship arguments to the participants of this research.

I would suggest that in order to obtain a more balanced perspective at least one non broadcaster view point should have been presented that informed the participants of the case for freedom of expression and less restriction of the media.

 

I welcome both your compliments about the BSC's research and your comments.

The research, as you will have seen from the report, was divided into very specific sections and the contributors of the video clips commented on each of the issues under consideration at each section. The structure of the research was very much that followed within citizens' juries but allowed greater freedom because of the breadth of areas and because of the views of the people chosen. The representative from Five, for example, is not known for his pro-censorship views but he does work within a particular structure. And the point of the research was to see how well that structure works and whether it could/should be relaxed. I think we met that objective.

What was interesting was that, depite the fact that participants were given the status quo viewpoint - added to with individual stances - they themselves moved to a view which argued for the relaxation of guidelines within specific circumstances.

Finally regarding phrases such as 'freedom of expression', one of the most interesting areas within research is to see what the 'public' understands by such words. As we found with the work on public interest, there is an inherent understanding of the terminology but it does not necessarily correlate with a legal view. Similarly with 'freedom of expression'. There is a sense of what it is, and participants - taken as a whole - do not argue for total freedom. This research shows - as does other recent work - that participants want to have an overarching structure that allows them to build certain basic expectations. They then, want information so that they have the freedom to make decisions about what they actually watch.

 

It would appear from your response that the bias was deliberate, in which case the results are, as you said, very interesting. Despite being presented with a very conservative viewpoint in favour of increased regulation, the participants tended towards a position involving less regulation. Presumably if the other side of the argument had been presented the results might have been even more striking.

I feel certain that you are right in assuming people are generally not in favour of total deregulation, although given the bias in favour of regulation it is difficult to see how this conclusion can be drawn from this study. One concern remains, what conclusions might have been drawn if the participants had been inclined to a more conservative viewpoint?

I don't want to involve you in a protracted discussion, but if you have the time I would be interested in your thoughts. I trust that Ofcom will be continuing with the research work in place of the BSC next year?

 

I am copying it to the Director of Research at Ofcom (Helen Normoyle) for her information. I have also copied it to the officers in charge of communications for the BSC (Donia Tahbaz) and the ITC (Helena Hird). I am sure they will be interested in your response, and questions.

For interest I have copied it to Norman McLean (Director, BSC) and Sarah Thane who oversees programming and advertising at the ITC.

Freedom of artistic expression in Poland

To H.E. Dr Stanislaw Komorowski,
Ambassador of the Polish Republic,
Polish Embassy,
47, Portland Place,
LONDON W1B 1JH

Freedom of artistic expression in Poland: the case of Dorota Nieznalska

I have recently learned of the criminal prosecution of Ms Dorota Nieznalska for offending religious susceptibilities and of the consequent sentence of six months’ “restricted liberty”, including a ban on travel, and forced labour on community work. The case revolved around the display of a work of art entitled Pasja in the Wyspa Gallery, Gdansk, and offence appeared to have been taken at the display of a photograph of male genitalia superimposed on a Greek cross. The complaint against Ms Nieznalska was laid by members of an extreme right-wing party who forced their way into the gallery after the closure of the exhibition. I should perhaps add that I am myself a religious believer, to be precise an Anglo-Catholic accustomed to venerating the Cross, and that I do not find the object displayed by Ms Nieznalska offensive. By profession, I am a lecturer at Brunel University, Uxbridge.

I believe that the prosecution of Ms Nieznalska raises important issues of freedom of expression, and that it seriously risks bringing your country into disrepute. The Polish state seems bizarrely ambivalent in its attitude towards her work. The web site of the Polish Cultural Institute in New York contains a reference in its archive to an exhibition by Polish women artists, including Ms Nieznalska and listing Pasja in her curriculum vitae, from which a link leads to a page in Polish describing the trial. The Polish Cultural Institute, described as “a diplomatic mission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland in the USA” displays her work, while the Polish state prosecutes her! The Adam Mickiewicz Institute is another organ of the Polish government promoting her work. Likewise, the Polish Cultural Institute in this country provides links to the online art magazine Hysterics, which helpfully includes the sentence on Ms Nieznalska in English and to the Raster page, also covering her case.

I find two aspects of the prosecution and sentence particularly disturbing. In the light of Poland’s postwar history, forbidding Ms Nieznalska to travel, and doing so explicitly in order to prevent her from exhibiting her work in a more tolerant climate, can only remind one of the Stalinist practice of forbidding exit visas to dissident artists. I had hoped that Poland had moved on from those times.

The other aspect, which I find even more worrying, is the context of sexism which surrounds this case. I understand that Pasja was one of several works in which Ms Nieznalska sought to explore issues of masculinity. Some such exploration seems necessary in a society in which persons whose delicate religious susceptibilities were allegedly affronted by Ms Nieznalska’s art threatened to rape her, and where a prominent member of the right-wing party involved in this case suggested that another “controversial” woman artist, Katarzyna Kozyra, should be publicly flogged. The sentence of forced labour on Ms Nieznalska seems designed to humiliate her and to pander to these ugly misogynistic and sadistic fantasies.

As Poland prepares to join the European Union, I hope that it will embrace normative European principles of freedom of speech and artistic expression. The prosecution of Ms Nieznalska seems incompatible with such principles.

Selective Liberty

BOD: I recently contacted Liberty for advice relating to an on going court room battle re the supply of R18 without a licence. There response was very negative, they do not want to get involved with pornography even though there is a clear injustice. Now I read an article from the Guardian were they assisted a drug user with taking his case to court.

Dano: Oh dear Liberty. A group who argue that it's fair that a burglar can sue a home owner who injurs him whilst defending his own home.

 

I read on the Melon Farmer's web site, that you refused to assist/advise someone who got involved in a pornography case which involved material classified for restricted sale by the BBFC.

I am surprised by this, given that pornographic material is a valid mode of expression, and is used by MILLIONS of people around the world, and that various governments including our own, impose unnecessary restrictions, on people, including putting them in prison.

Or are the only freedoms we should really have, those that Liberty supports, and to Hell with the others, even though they are REAL human rights abuses ?

A copy of this email has gone to the Melon Farmer's anti-censorship web site, informally read by many UK authorities (I know this to be a fact) in the hope that he will print this letter on his web pages, and by doing so, encourage you to give an definitive answer, why you would not help this person, or people like him.

I'll finish by saying that people who've involved themselves in distributing legal to own 'adult material", to ADULTS who want the same, are VERY MUCH MORE innocent, than those who ACTUALLY involve themselves in acts terrorism which threaten to kill some of us, yet you'd defend the rights of the latter but not the former, even though the former often ends up in prison, without real necessity. So where are the Human Rights of the former please. and why does Liberty not care about them ?

Why does Liberty care more for terrorists who blow people up and kill them, than they care for people who supply legal to possess adult material to other adults who want it ?

 

Thank you for your email received 23 December 2003.

I have now had a chance to read through your email and understand you have are concerned that Liberty refused to assist or advise an individual involved in a case relating to sale of restricted material. First, let me say that I am not in a position to discuss the individual case referred to in your email. As a matter of policy it would not be appropriate for me to discuss details of his dealings with Liberty with third parties such as yourself. In any event, I do not know any details about this person's dealings with Liberty, particularly how or when he approached Liberty for assistance or what type of assistance he was seeking. I can, however, provide you with general information about Liberty's position on the issue of pornography and how this may affect the level of assistance we are able to provide any individual who approaches us.

As you probably know, Liberty is primarily a campaigning organisation. The central dilemmas for us, from a campaigning perspective, are always lack of resources (both human and financial) making it imperative that we carefully prioritise our work so as not to spread ourselves too thin. Currently, Liberty's core priority work areas fall into the four broad categories of criminal justice, policing, privacy and equality. Liberty undertakes a range of litigation, media work and lobbying to influence government policy on these issues. Even with our limited remit, we frequently find ourselves fighting on several fronts simultaneously. For example, over the past few months alone, we have campaigned extensively on the issues of national ID cards, the use of anti-terrorism legislation by police against peaceful demonstrators, the Criminal justice Bill and the internment of immigration detainees without charge.

Liberty recognises that there are many civil liberties/human rights issues that do not fall within our four priority areas, including issues relating to censorship. The fact that we have not identified such issues as priorities does not mean we do not agree that reform on that issue may be necessary or share concerns about current or proposed laws and we often undertake limited campaigning on such issues. For example, we responded to the government consultations on the draft Mental Health Bill. However, as a organisation we reserve the right to determine our own priorities and the issue of censorship is unlikely to become a priority area for Liberty. This is not to say that from time to time we will not take issue with a particular government policy or proposal if we feel it unreasonably interferes with rights of free expression.

In terms of our casework, we receive a huge number of requests from individuals requesting that we take up their cases. Once again, due to our very limited resources - Liberty's litigation unit is staffed by just four legal officers - we are limited to taking on a handful of cases each year and must apply extremely strict criteria in selecting which cases we take on. In short, we look to take on cases that fall within our priority work areas that will allow us to establish a point of principle by testing UK law against European human rights standards or the Human Rights Act 1998.

In addition to looking for novel human rights law issues, it is important to understand that as a matter of expertise, we are very much limited to taking on cases that come within our priority areas. Human rights law tends to 'cut across' other areas of law and although a matter may raise legitimate human rights law questions if, in order to run the actual case, expertise and knowledge of a non-priority area of law is essential, then we may not be equipped to take the case on. For example, we receive many queries from individuals who are concerned that a local authority planning decision may interfere with their rights under Article 8 (private & family life) or Article 1, Protocol 1 (protection of property). While we understand that these concerns about interference with human rights may be legitimate and relevant, only a planning lawyer with knowledge of planning procedures and regulations would be equipped to run a case challenging such a decision. With such requests, we do our best to provide basic information on the area of law, some guidance on the possible human rights law implications and then advise the individual to seek specialist assistance. We would also advise the individual that we offer a telephone advice service for solicitors who are seeking specialist advice on how the HRA would apply to the case and details of how their solicitor (if they choose to engage one) can access the service.

Liberty does provide some level of assistance to all individuals who make use of our free advice services. The level of assistance we can provide, however, is affected by our expertise in the primary legal issues raised by the query (which is limited where the primary legal issue falls outside our priority areas), and in the case of requests for representation, our very strict test case criteria as outlined above. I do hope that the above clarifies Liberty's approach to its work and how we deal with the many requests for assistance and campaign suggestions that we receive. I am conscious that I have not provided you with much of an explanation as to why the four priority work areas identified above were chosen - the reason for this is that I am not entirely sure myself. The member of staff best equipped to provide information on this is our Policy Officer - our Policy Officer is actually on leave at the moment, returning next week. If you have more questions about this or other policy related questions, I will be happy to discuss them with him and provide further answers.

 

Yes I would be interested to know why the free expression aspect of the Human Rights Act is virtually ignored by Liberty. Personally I think it is the absolute cornerstone of any free society, and despite how distasteful certain material may be to some, expression should only be restricted when there is irrefutable evidence of _real_ harm, rather than that which exists only in the minds of some (often religious) people. Indeed, I believe one of the roots of terrorism, is the failure and constant refusal of certain (again esp. religious) factions in the world to believe others should be entitled to free expression, limited only when absolutely necessary, where real and manifest harm is more than likely. If a culture of free and open expression was globally accepted, much of the reason for hatred in the world would vanish. We might not agree but we could all learn to beg to differ on much more. If free expression was properly enshrined in law and supported so it was not unnecessarily eroded, we'd HAVE to learn to beg to differ on many contentious issues.

Of course lines have to be drawn, but if they need to be drawn, it is generally quite obvious.

Where outright censorship is concerned I can only think of:
 

1. Racial Hatred and incitement, and Sexual harassment.
2. Speech likely to cause immediate panic (IE shouting FIRE in a crowed theatre)
3. Defamation, especially if malicious slander.
4. Pornography involving children
5. REAL Cruelty to children, and animals for entertainment.

Note that I DON'T include religion here. I don't think that there is any need to defend other people's religious beliefs.For one think they are free to change them any time they wish. This is unlike race, sex, or skin shade. Religious beliefs are a matter of faith which many others do not share. Why then should someone else's faith, be a reason for restriction of freedom of expression ? For example if a none believe wishes to express a controversial view about the chains of religion, and all the trouble it seems to cause...

I think if you publicly held the view that unnecessary censorship was indeed a Human Rights infringement, it would (in political speak) "send a message" to government and the other so called "authorities" that it was unacceptable.

You could add that it was currently outside your area of expertise, or that because of other current priorities you could only give the minimum of advice to affected people at the present time.

By this you'd recruit at least one new member (IE me) and perhaps some others too.

To be honest, I think some of your current crusades are generally unpopular, and are perceived to protect anyone but the free born British person. It is said that those people who are interned without trial, can leave the UK anytime they wish. So I don't quite understand why this is such a major problem... or priority. In the mean time, people do not have the "liberty" to defend their property, (including their homes) are not properly protected by the state, whose duty it seems to believe is to persecute them instead. People are persecuted or imprisoned for possessing anything which they feel they need to protect themselves. Never mind that some live in real fear! Tough on them!

Now, before you accuse or consider me to be some kind of political right winger, I am nothing of the sort. I do remember however, being burgled, when I lived alone some years ago, having my downstairs completely ransacked, and then sleeping on the lounge settee for six months afterwards with a lump hammer at the side of my "bed" because I was terrified.... I wonder if I'd had cause to use that lump hammer, in self defence, whether Liberty would have defended my freedom to protect myself, or if it would defend the rights of the burglar to sue me ?

You admit that Liberty's resources and money are short. I am afraid to have to say, that because of the unpopular aspect of many of your "priorities" in the eyes of the British general public this is something that hardly surprises me.

ID cards are not a major issue for most people. Indeed (an perhaps misguidedly) most people want them. The main irritation for me would be if I was required to carry one. A campaign against unnecessary Speed cameras, and OTT camera surveillance, would be a popular quest. I believe campaigning for a proper written constitution which no politician can easily derogate from would also be popular. Also it would be a good idea to enshrine some kind of priority for the UK and EU citizen (above the basic rights which everyone should have of course) in the constitution, because I believe that the Human Rights Act is in danger of being completely scrapped, by the Blair (Blunkett) administration, because of their inability to deal with terrorists.

One way of dealing with this, would be for the rights to be irrevokable, where UK, and EU citizens are concerned, and allow more flexibility for politicians where so called "aliens" are concerned. Better this, than to have the whole lot scrapped I think. This is not to say I agree with some of the policies of the present government, but it may be that they are simply between a rock and a hard place, or perceive themselves to be so. Personally I think that if they'd stop meddling in other countries affairs (and be like Denmark, Sweden, Holland etc) we'd all be a lot better off, and there wouldn't be any need for such derogation.... The fact that they can derogate at all, indicates to me, how worthless the present HRA is.

Personal Imports

It is clear from the InterDVD statement that they were holding and selling unclassified DVD's from within the UK. This is illegal under the VRA however, personal imports are exempt and any attempt by the BBFC to 'cloud' this issue is extremely underhand.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that anything entering the country from abroad is an 'import' irrespective of where or how it was ordered and, therefore, falls under the rules for personal imports which are exempt from the terms of 'supply' under the VRA. Of course, if anyone was to re-sell these in the UK they would be breaking the law.

I believe the statement on the BBFC site is just scare-mongering as they see their monopoly and control over what we view dissolve into history. Mr Duval made a fairly weak case for their continued existence in his RSA lecture. I thought it was bordering on paranoia and he was clearly appealing to the feeble-minded advocates of censorship.

The sooner self-certification is introduced the better.

 

I believe that the prohibition on personal imports is something cooked up by the media companies rather then by the BBFC. The BBFC just reported the state of the current regulations.

However I also believed that Customs would never support such a blatant corruption of the interpretation of law. Why should large media companies expect to corrupt British law for their selfish purposes? Surely British authorities should represent the British people rather than act as a nasty vindictive puppet for big business.

Perhaps there may be a  good side to this abuse of both human rights and free trade could backfire on our authorities and censors. A successful challenge in the European Courts could challenge the basic legality of the noxious Video Recordings Act.

Surely when challenged against the background of human rights the authorities should never have the unbelievable power to require that all video material to be pre-vetted by the state.

 

It is clear from the InterDVD statement that they were holding and selling unclassified DVD's from within the UK. This is illegal under the VRA however, personal imports are exempt and any attempt to 'cloud' this issue is extremely underhand.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that anything entering the country from abroad is an 'import' irrespective of where or how it was ordered and, therefore, falls under the rules for personal imports which are exempt from the terms of 'supply' under the VRA. Of course, if anyone was to re-sell these in the UK they would be breaking the law. I believe the statement on the BBFC site is just scare-mongering.

Mr Duval made a fairly weak case for their continued existence in his RSA lecture. I thought it was bordering on paranoia and he was clearly appealing to the feeble-minded advocates of censorship.

The sooner self-certification is introduced the better.

Good Clean Fun

The Question is this : Why is it that any film including "Enema" Scenes within it will either be completely banned outright, or will at least have such scenes compulsorarily hacked-out - even on R18?

Considering Channel 5 broadcast that "Celebrity Detox" programme a few months ago and considering that enemas have been practiced as a health (not-sexual) ritual for thousands of years, and bearing in mind the most explicit an enema scene can get is inserting a nozzle into an anus instead of the dreaded "erect penis" (oh no, shock, horror!) and then later PERHAPS the "emptying of the bowels", which most people worldwide watch themselves do every day of their life, and considering also programmes like "Life of Grime" on BBC1 literally showing rivers of the shit from drains, etc., etc., I ask, What the Hell is the Problem????

Please believe me when I say I am NOT a sicko! I am a rather square middle class Englishman with a good university degree! Many people like me love and regularly practice enemas - we are all just "underground" that's all! Like gays were once, like heterosexual anal sex was until right now....

Take a look into enemas yourself mate - once you have taken your first, it won't just be the bag that will be hooked. So will you! You can find out a hell of a lot about them on the internet in general - hundreds of websites, not including hundreds of Yahoo groups devoted to them also!

Heads Up!

Blunkett's Despicable Sexual Offences Bill

It occurs to me that Mr Blunkett and his despicable Sexual Offences Bill is nothing more than his attempt to level the playing field. What do I mean? It seems to me all that all the contentious restrictions this Bill covers are being aimed at 'public displays' of nudity. In so much as Mr Blunkett cannot see such displays and can hardly claim any offence from such acts himself, he is, in effect, making sure no able-sighted person gets to see such things either. I think in this respect he is, out of sheer spite, 'blinding' the whole of society to what is, in the most part, totally harmless fun and the most fundamental of freedoms of expression.

I have stated several times that nudity is our natural state, anyone who takes offence at nature is at odds with the World and I have little respect for any community which argues differently. Clothing and 'decency' are man-made concepts and constructs and have no place in a free-thinking society.

Just to illustrate how ludicrous this Bill has become, can I ask all readers to think of ANY instance where a 'moon' could be construed to form a 'sexual offence' and punishable by up to 2 years in prison!? What about the recent adverts for toilet paper, bums galore on our TV screens several times a night - is this not 'mooning'? Has ANYONE complained about this ad campaign causing offence? Obviously not, as these ads have been on our screens for months and the ITC are only too willing to 'maintain standards' whenever some dick-head pipes up...

This Bill represents the most fundamental breach of human rights since the Nazis started persecuting Jews. We were born naked, if you like 'God' made us naked, and we cannot allow some narrow-minded, 'chip on his shoulder' bigot to strip (no pun intended) away our freedoms.

Censorship & Cowardice Department at eBay

Just last night I listed the 18 rated, BBFC approved documentary MARY MILLINGTON - THE NAKED TRUTH (aka True Blue Confessions) for auction on Ebay. By 6.00 PM tonight, it had been removed. Why? Check out the following email

 

We appreciate that you chose eBay to list the following item(s): 3351077414 Mary Millington NAKED TRUTH rare documentary! However, your listing(s) contained adult material that is inappropriate for listing on eBay UK. Therefore, we have ended this auction(s) and all fees have been credited to your account.

In determining whether the item should be permitted to be listed, we consider the overall content of the listing including pictures and text.

For example, if an item description leads us to believe the content of the listing is adult in nature as defined by this policy, that item will be ended.

Please note that blocking the "risque" parts of an image will not exempt the item from these standards.

For your convenience we have included a link to our Adult items policies:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-erotica.html

Please view our guideline page for a better understanding of our auction guidelines and how they affect the way you list your items:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-list.html

For information on infringing or illegal items or for information on other eBay listing guidelines, please view:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-items.html

For more information on why eBay has ended an auction, please visit:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-endauction.html

Any future listings that fail to meet our Adult items guidelines will be ended early and repeated violations may jeopardise your account status. We value you as a member of our community and wish to continue this relationship. Therefore, we respectfully ask that you abide by eBay's Listing Policies and User Agreement in the future.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department) eBay Inc

 

Thanks for your gentle ticking off and short lesson in the evils of my auction item MARY MILLINGTON - THE NAKED TRUTH, a wholly innocuous slice of 18 rated, BBFC approved (therefore, completely legal) Brit-smut.

However, I am a little confused regarding the way in which your policy for 'inappropriate' material is actually enforced. If your definition of inappropriate does actually mean 'any material that depicts, in actual or simulated form, or explicitly describes, in a predominantly sexual context, human genitalia, any act of natural or unnatural sexual intercourse, any act of sadism or masochism, or any other erotic subject directly related to the foregoing' then I am afraid that the item I listed for auction hardly qualifies.

If it does indeed breach your guidelines, then I am afraid you must take it upon yourselves immediately to remove a whole range of films currently listed for sale on your auction site, such as BASIC INSTINCT, JADE, LAST TANGO IN PARIS or CALIGULA. These titles all contain material that meets your criteria for 'inappropriate' far more than THE NAKED TRUTH. Let's take a sample from the suggested cross-section of titles that I am currently free to bid on - repeated stabbing with an ice-pick while a naked woman straddles a bound man, a stilletto heel rammed into the anus of a submissive man and sodomy enacted upon a woman whose anus has been lubricated with butter. Granted, these acts are all simulated, but I'm pretty sure at least one of these acts would fit into your definition of 'unnatural sexual intercourse'. Moreover, as you are so keen to ensure that ACTUAL depictions of sexual activity are prohibited for sale, would you please explain to me why I was able to purchase on EBay UK, the complete, unexpurgated version of an infamous 1970s film (starring Peter O' Toole, Helen Mirren and Sir John Gielgud) that includes unsimulated depictions of (both heterosexual and homosexual) oral sex , vaginal penetration, ejaculation and urination? If you are unwilling to sanction the sale of such material then I am quite sure the seller would be quite happy to take back your percentage.

For the record, THE NAKED TRUTH contains absolutely no explicit depictions of genitalia, only very brief (and very mild) depictions of (simulated) sexual intercourse, and absolutely no examples of sadism or mashochism. The film is actually a documentary record of the eponymous individual's career in the UK sex industry of the 70s and the occassional example of sexual material is wholly appropriate and completely unavoidable.

As somebody who holds a doctorate in film studies, I do find it quite extraordinary in the 21st century that an organization such as yours (which, incidentally, I value very highly) should take it upon itself to act as a secondary censor after the body officially designated to do the job has already deemed the 'offending' article wholly suitable for adult consumption. I am afraid your policy is typical of the ignorance afforded marginalized cultural forms in the UK - in this case, if you haven't judged a book by its cover, then you have barely glanced beyond the title page.

Perhaps ironically, one of the features of the documentary was the way in which its subject was hounded to her grave by the unremitting harassment of the censoriously minded institutions that sought to impose their own excruciatingly conservative world view upon others. I am very disappointed in your action and

I urge you to reconsider your position (oops, sexually suggestive remark, liable to censorship). I will continue to value EBAY but must voice my opposition in this case of corporate censorship. I look forward to a more considered response and the possibility that I may be able to re-list the item in light of a mature, sensible and adult discussion.

 

I couldnt agree more with your comments. I tried to list the adult cartoon ' jungle burger ' on ebay a few months  ago and had the listing rejected twice, even though there were 4 others already on there that weren't taken off!!!

Ebay show no consistency in their no adult material policy. You can find porn, banned videos, pirate videos and loads more dodgy stuff on there if you look hard enough, but can't sell a saucy 1970's cartoon on there!!!! I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed!

 

I remember reading about the childish restrictions on Ebay recently on your site. Probably you may know already know about alternatives but some Melon Farmers might not do so.

Once registered http://www.QXL.com allows the trading of "adult" material... It trades in pounds and there seems to be few restrictions in the "over 18" section of the site.

Don't know if this link will work (bypassing the over 18 login) but you can try: http://www.qxl.co.uk/Listing9949/ListingType0/ListingSort1/Page2.html/23310

 

Isn't the UNJUSTIFIED restriction of 'information and ideas' illegal under Article 10 of the HRA?

eBay cannot simply decide what you or I can or cannot sell. I know they probably think they can but, they must provide some evidence of the harm that would be caused if such items were sold through their system. As all the items Neil etc. have listed are perfectly legal and BBFC classified films, eBay have no right or legal power to remove and restrict the 'information and ideas' therein. A trading company has to abide by the law and eBay cannot promote themselves to State censors at the drop of a hat.

This may have something to do with PayPal taking a similar stance on the purchase of adult material through their systems. I believe eBay uses PayPal as one of it's preferred payment methods. It follows then that PayPal and eBay are acting unlawfully. They are imposing some unjustified and frankly ridiculous restriction on certain types of goods for some rather underhand and sinister purpose. One can only speculate where this trend will finish if allowed to continue however, it would not be stretching the bounds of possibility that the only thing you would be able to sell on eBay in the future would be copies of the Bible and Walt Disney cartoons...!

This obviously cannot be allowed to continue and I would urge anyone who has fallen foul of eBay's (or PayPal's) illegal terms to write to Trading Standards and get this matter investigated.

 

Bidding Against Oneself

There seems to be a bug in eBay's proxy bidding system. (where the bidders specifies their max price and letes the system generate automatic bids)

The following is a log of a sale where shaunhw defined a policy for the bidding proxy. What made the system bid twice without any opposing bid?

shaunhw( 0 ) £26.50 07-Oct-03 14:18:23 BST

shaunhw( 0 ) £26.50 07-Oct-03 14:02:07 BST

shaunhw( 0 ) £26.00 07-Oct-03 14:01:07 BST

panayiota01( 1 ) £25.50 07-Oct-03 16:28:44 BST

shaunhw( 0 ) £24.00 07-Oct-03 11:27:10 BST

panayiota01( 1 ) £23.50 07-Oct-03 16:27:19 BST

saharabebobs( 3 ) £21.02 07-Oct-03 16:26:13 BST

saharabebobs( 3 ) £19.02 07-Oct-03 16:25:19 BST

saharabebobs( 3 ) £17.02 07-Oct-03 13:11:39 BST

shaunhw( 0 ) £16.02 07-Oct-03 09:15:10 BST

molly439( 13)  £15.02 06-Oct-03 20:58:53 BST

shaunhw( 0 ) £15.00 07-Oct-03 09:14:41 BST

tomolou( 32)  £13.00 06-Oct-03 21:07:17 BST

tomolou( 32)  £12.00 06-Oct-03 21:07:03 BST

tomolou( 32)  £11.00 06-Oct-03 18:39:20 BST

mikequiz( 0 ) £10.00 06-Oct-03 17:06:41 BST

tomolou( 32)  £10.00 06-Oct-03 18:38:52 BST

tomolou( 32)  £8.00 06-Oct-03 00:24:03 BST

hotdog027( 12)  £7.00 01-Oct-03 20:30:33 BST

colinm44( 47)  £6.00 30-Sep-03 21:16:45 BST

hotdog027( 12) 

 

ebay told me, that everytime you increase your max bid, the current bid goes up......Even if yours was the current bid.

So: If you have bid a max of (say) 20 pounds, and it looks like it is going to go above - and you are still the max bidder (it has bid on your behalf, to (say) 18.50, and you aren't going to be around, and want to keep the high bid, if you increas the max bid to (say) 30 pounds, then you are automatically bid against yourself. IE your current bid, of 18.50 will be increased to 19.00 or whatever the increment is, just for the benifit of increasing the maximum bid.

This of course is utter bullshit. You should be allowed to vary your maximum bid up or down to the level of the current bid, if that bid is your own... (which it would be, if you had a MAXBID higher..)

I wouldn't recommend people using Ebays proxy bid, which causes you to bid against yourself, which is bloody stupid....

 

Interesting reading, and as someone who has had auctions ended it annoys me no end. I even had an auction for the american movie Serial Killing for Dummies removed at the request of the publishers of the For Dummies series of books.

however, all this talk of human rights legislation is (sadly) probably all for nothing. that's because ebay is something you choose to sign up to. when you do this you agree to their rules and regulations. don't agree with them, don't sign up - that's probably the legal position.

 

Just logged into e-bay to browse the soon-to-be-finishing videos, and noticed at the top of the page in one of those expensive "display" ads that festoons itself across the top of every category:

Penis Enlargements Pills £10 per bottle.

Seems e-bay are quite happy to sanction the sale of material designed to cause growth (temporary or otherwise) in one's member, providing the price is right to them...

 

eBay appreciates the fact that you chose to list your auction(s): Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler: Nazis Germany WW2 with us. However, your auction contained the following information:

Offensive material

which is not allowed on eBay. Therefore, we have ended this auction and all fees have been credited to your account.

Items relating to Nazi Germany, such as German World War II memorabilia, are sought after by collectors and historians world wide. However, eBay is now a worldwide community, with many users residing in countries where the possession or sale of items associated with hate organizations is a criminal offence.

eBay has always exercised judgment in allowing or disallowing certain listings consistent with the spirit of a worldwide community. Therefore, eBay will judiciously disallow listings or items that promote or glorify hatred, violence, or racial intolerance, or items that promote organizations (such as the KKK, Nazis, neo-Nazis, and Aryan Nation) with such views. For example, eBay will generally remove items that bear the marks of such organizations, such as relics from the KKK or Nazi helmets.

eBay will review listings that are brought to its attention by its worldwide community, and will look at the entire listing to determine whether it falls within this rule.

Examples of items that will generally be removed:

• Items that bear symbols of the Nazis, the SS, or the KKK, including authentic German WWII memorabilia that bears such marks.
• Crime scene photographs
• Morgue shots
• Letters and artwork from notorious murderers
• Electric chairs and related capital punishment items

Examples of items that may generally be listed:

• German coins and stamps from the WWII era regardless of markings
• WWII memorabilia that does not bear the Nazi or SS markings
• Books and movies about WWII or Nazi Germany, even if the Nazi symbol appears on the item
• War documentaries or documentary photos portraying victims of war or violence
• Items of historical importance associated with acts of violence against public figures

Future listings that fail to meet our guidelines will be ended early and repeated violations may jeopardize your account status. We value you as a member of our community and wish to continue our relationship, so we respectfully ask you to refrain from any violations of the Listing Policies or User Agreement in the future.

 

It seems they don't mind people listing Nazi Love Camp 7, Ilsa She-wolf Of The SS and Gestapo's Last Orgy but they don't seem to like anything that is actually historically important.

Some interesting points from their contradictory policies: However, eBay is now a worldwide community, with many users residing in countries where the possession or sale of items associated with hate organizations is a criminal offence
Since the item was only offered for sale in the UK, and can therefore only be seen on the UK site unless specified, where it is legal to own this, unlike some supposedly democratic European countries, then this is just some bullshit to justify their censorship.

Items of historical importance associated with acts of violence against public figures
The book was listed as being primarily for historians and students, and since it is Hitler's only main writing I thought Ebay's halfwits would have considered this, it seems their brains must be in their jackboots.

Books and movies about WWII or Nazi Germany, even if the Nazi symbol appears on the item (This will be generally permitted)
Why then did they feel the need to censor an auction that fell into this category?

 

Response to Alan's post.

Alan, isn't it the case that our Government have to amend any legislation that is found to be in breach of HR law? How then can an unelected and solely commercial body such as Ebay or PayPal start to inflict quite serious breaches of Article 10 and expect to get away with it? As I stated previously, I believe any affected individual should pursue this wholly unauthorised restriction through the courts - they don't have to go to Strasbourg now that the HRA is part of UK law.

I fail to see how a company can legally over-rule Human Rights Law, in effect re-writing the Statute to suit their own personal convictions. Just to illustrate a point, what if in Ebay's small print it said they could "summarily execute by lethal injection anyone attempting to sell 'adult' material through their service". Is this legally binding?

We all recognise that restricting someone's Right To Life is illegal. By the same token, so is the unjustified restriction of the Right To Freedom Of Expression, to "impart and receive information and ideas without interference".

The test is whether Ebay's terms are actually legal under UK/European law - I believe I can show that they are not: I think it is irrelevant whether one 'agrees' with the terms when signing up to use the service, as no one can remove a Fundamental Right without proper justification (not even the Government or our Courts, let alone some jumped-up Internet auction venue). The ECHR have stated "Article 10 does not permit the restriction of any legally available material", for their terms to require restriction of legal material is clearly illegal. It could even be argued that, to agree not to supply legally available material, one would be in breach of Article 10! This last point may seem a little strained however, the fact is I have as much Right to *receive* your material as you have to *impart* it!

Finally, you have to be 18 to use Ebay so, where/when/how/why can't adults sell 'adult' material to other adults? Ebay can't even claim to be protecting minors, which might have been their only defence! As long as it is legal to sell the item in the seller's country and, it is legal for the buyer to purchase in their country, Ebay have no right to prevent the sale. I also note that Ebay only claim to remove items for which they have received complaints - this means nutters like the Internet Vigilantes are most likely behind all this and I'm sure we all know they cannot be trusted to observe anyone's Rights.

 

I have just been reading the letters on censorship at eBay with some interest. They have recently removed an auction I had for a Playboy magazine. Their first attempt at explaining the reason was that it was illegal to sell Playboy in the UK. When I pointed out that this was not the case and they could walk down to their local newsagent to check, they informed me that it was their policy not to list items of an adult nature. They also informed me that they do not do any checking themselves as a rule but if someone reports an item, they will look into it and remove if necessary. In other words, they don't really care what they make money from but they want to appear to take the moral line. After further clarification they told me that if I reported any video or DVD that contained nudity, it would be removed. On a quick search, I reckon this is about half the films on the site! It's just a shame I don't have the time to do this.

I realise eBay is free to make up the rules about what it allows and does not allow for auction but I find it amazing that they are censoring items that are perfectly legal to buy in the UK.