Dear Sir / Madam
I am writing with regard
to current restrictions that are placed on the distribution of R18
certified films in the United Kingdom. I wish to start with the facts that
already exist:
1)
Pornographic images that portray normal human consenting sexual activity
between adults are not harmful to the adult viewer;
2)
R18
certified films show hard-core pornographic images and are legally
purchasable by adults from licensed sex-shops;
3)
Government reports that state that these images are viewed by only a small
percentage of the population are misleading;
4)
The
current legislation that stops the broadcasting of R18 films on restricted
access channels on digital television is the Video Recordings Act 1984
(and subsequent amendments to this Act);
5)
The
restrictions in place are because of the view that children may be able to
access R18 films;
6)
Technologic advances in digital television can stop any person that the
system owner wishes not to see specifically certified programmes;
7)
There
is a growing culture of acceptance of the right for adults to view
pornography in the privacy of their own home;
8)
The
European Convention on Human Rights (2000) allows Freedom of Expression
within certain boundaries;
9)
The
black-market in pornography is huge because of the restrictions placed in
law and is unlikely to subside given the Government's stance;
10)
Current
legislation may actually increase exposure to sexual imagery by children
and also exposes adults to paedophilia.
I have analysed each of
these points further and wish to challenge the current view that R18
certified films should not be accessible on digital television. The
current legislation is flawed in many respects and the Government has a
duty to tackle the issues that emanate from the current legislation.
I would like a response
to the points made and would like clarification on why the current
legislation is justified in treating the broadcasting of R18 films as
illegal based on the views of the majority of the adult population, the
technological advances in restricting viewing by children and the rights
of adults, particularly in the light of the European Convention on Human
Rights (Articles 8 & 10). I would also like to have clarification that the
law regarding broadcasting is in effect the Government inferring that they
have decided that the adult population of the United Kingdom can not be
trusted to be law-abiding citizens in dealing with this material as this
is the only conclusion I am able to make from the legislation regarding
R18 films.
Pornographic images that portray normal human consenting sexual activity
between adults are not harmful to the adult viewer
There has been a great
deal of research done in this area that points to this fact. Perhaps the
best know in the United Kingdom is that of Dr Guy Cumberbatch of Aston
University and Dr Dennis Howett of the University of Loughborough,
commissioned by the Home Office. They concluded that exposure to
pornographic material by adults was not a factor in the committing of
sexual-orientated crimes and that could find little evidence that adults
are harmed by pornographic imagery:
……..evidence does not point to pornography
as a cause of deviant sexual orientation in offenders. Rather, it seems to
be used as part of that deviant sexual orientation....
It is known that exposure to such material
is common in later childhood and adolescence, but apart from reports of
children used in producing pornography or exposed to pornography as part
of sexual abuse, little evidence exists that pornography is harmful.
This viewpoint is now
accepted, even by Government, as correct. It is stated clearly about the
dangers of R18 films to adults in the Annex to the Consultation Paper on
the Regulation of R18 Videos, which says that
'Unlike tobacco and alcohol, which are
widely available, there is no known and substantiated health or other risk
associated with watching a video which has been given an R18
classification'.
This part of the article
then emphasises the fact that there is public concern regarding exposure
of children to this material, a factor which I will discuss later in this
article.
Although there is a
wealth of material on this matter, particularly from the USA, there is no
need to discuss this matter further as the restrictions are not in place
for the reason of protecting the adult viewer.
R18
certified films show hard-core pornographic images and are legally
purchasable by adults from licensed sex-shops
The R18 certificate was
created under the Video Recordings Act 1984 to allow adults within the
United Kingdom the right to purchase hard-core pornographic videos within
licensed sex-shops only for the first time. There are restrictions on what
is permissible to be shown within these videos and it has been the rôle of
the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to decide what is
acceptable.
The rôle of the licensed
sex-shops is to ensure that any person who purchases these videos is at
least 18 years old. They have been hampered throughout the years in which
they have been able to supply R18 films by the severe costs and
restrictions placed on them by local authorities, the rising black market
in distributing pornography and the unwillingness of many film producers
to accept the censorship that the BBFC has wielded at various times (see
the appeal made by the BBFC regarding it's refusal to grant R18
certificates to erotic films distributed by Sheptonhurst Ltd., and Prime
Time Promotions - a case it subsequently lost). This is referred to in the
Consultation Paper on the Regulation of R18 Videos (2000). The
unwillingness of local authorities to grant sex-shop licences has helped
the black-market to thrive at the expense of legitimate businesses.
It is important to note
that at the time of the BBFC's response to Consultation Paper on the
Regulation of R18 Videos (2000) they state that only 204 films had been
granted R18 certification. This figure shows that there is a great
unwillingness by distributors to bother with the trouble of classification
when they can reach the more profitable black-market anyway without
breaking any law themselves (via distributors throughout Europe who supply
the UK via mail order, often posting these videos from addresses within
the UK). Anybody who visits an unlicensed sex-shop in Soho will see more
videos on display than the 204 that have been certified. Therefore the
legitimate trade cannot compete.
Government reports that state that these images are viewed by only a small
percentage of the population are misleading
There is an implication
within the various Government reports surrounding the legislation
regarding the Video Recordings Act that only a small number of people wish
to view pornographic videos. I can only assume that this assumption is
made because of the number of retail sales of R18 films in licensed
sex-shops. I would assert that a very small percentage of pornographic
videos watched in the UK are obtained through licensed sex-shops and the
vast majority are obtained by pirating someone else's video tape, mail
order, via unlicensed shops or brought in from abroad. The numbers who
actually watch these films are much higher than the report suggests
(particularly among adults under 40). If you read most of the magazines
now aimed at the younger adult market you will find many articles about
porn stars and related subjects implying that this age range is not only
open in it's acceptance of pornography but they also have an understanding
the subject matter (in most cases gained by having seen this type of
film).
I would wish to know
whether any survey has ever been carried out by the Government to look at
the preferences of the under 40 market and their view of the current
restrictions. This age group forms a considerable part of the adult
population of the UK and yet their views rarely seem to be recognised when
such matters are looked at. We only ever hear the rantings of some
politicians and editorials in certain newspapers (whose sales are high not
because of their opinions but because of their skills at covering proper
news and sport).
I have note that that on
the Liberal Democrat Youth and Students website (branch of the Liberal
Democratic Party) that they have went into detailed discussion about their
views of the availability of pornography at their latest conference. I
believe that this group's views are consistent with that of their age
group. They have undoubtedly discussed this at great length and there is
an unwavering support for the restrictions currently attached to R18 films
to be greatly modified for accessibility and for people to be treated as
adults who are responsible for their own actions. The view held by some
that pornography is only for old men in dirty raincoats who are shunned by
society is frankly laughable and inconsistent with the opinions of so many
of the younger adult population.
The
current legislation that stops the broadcasting of R18 films on restricted
access channels on digital television is the Video Recordings Act 1982
(and subsequent amendments to this Act)
The current
legislation that stops the broadcasting of R18 films was included in the
'Consultation Paper on the Regulation of R18 Videos':
'Current Controls on
Sales of R18 videos
2.2 There are strict
controls on the sale of videoworks which are given an R18 classification.
Under Section 12 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, such videos can only
be sold in a licensed sex shop - of which there are approximately 90 in
England and Wales plus two in Scotland - to adults aged 18 and over. They
cannot be legally sold by mail order, supplied through ordinary video
outlets or shown on television. Their supply other than in a licensed sex
shop would be a criminal offence subject to a fine of up to £5,000, six
months' imprisonment, or both.'
The
restrictions in place are because of the view that children may be able to
access films
This really seems to be
the heart of the matter. The Government uses this defence in the
legislation and discussion papers regarding the broadcasting of R18 films.
This restriction is, even in the Government's admission, not based on fact
but on conjecture. The Government has stated that there is no actual
evidence proving that allowing adults to view R18 films in any way
increases the risk to children:
'The Government maintains a firm commitment
to the protection of children from unsuitable sexually explicit material.
It takes the common sense view that exposure to pornography of this type
is potentially harmful to children generally. There is little conclusive
evidence of harmful effects but formal research in this area – as in many
others involving an assessment of the possible linkage between certain
material and psychological damage or behavioural problems – is inherently
difficult to carry out, particularly if it involves children.' (Video
Recordings Act 1993).
This statement within the
Act seems to ignore the fact that substantial research on this matter does
exist. The legalisation of the pornographic trade in the USA owes much to
research carried out by various scientific bodies such as the American
Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography 1970, Ben-Viste 1970,
Goldstein et al 1970, Kutschinsky (various studies mainly in Denmark). It
also ignores the fact that younger adults over the age of 18 can be used
in this area of research, particularly as they are likely to have been
exposed to more pornography then previous generations because the Internet
has enabled them to see these images. This age group is still young enough
to have the vivid memories of their childhood and so can be used for
research. I have no doubt that research also can be found among our
European partners who have legitimised pornography.
Each amendment to the Act
fails to take into account the rapid technological advances in digital
television and places little emphasis on the rôle of the parent or
guardian of a child. The supplying of an R18 film to a minor is already a
criminal offence and should rightly be strictly enforced. It is the duty
of every parent or guardian to protect a child from seeing R18 films and
this should be recognised when restricting the access to R18 films. It is
even admitted in the Consultation paper published in 2000 that treating
the subject in this way may conflict with Section 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights as proving the non-broadcasting of R18 channels
is difficult to prove as necessary and proportionate:
'…….could be seen as
an infringement of the rights of adults to decide what to view in their
own home. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is relevant to
this consideration, particularly Article 8 which covers the "right to
respect for private and family life". However the ECHR does permit
necessary and proportionate interference by public authorities on a number
of grounds including for the prevention of crime, the protection of health
or morals or for the protections of the rights and freedoms of others.'
(Relates to a purposed amendment to the Act regarding exposure to material
by minors)
The approach of
restricting the output of R18 films to licensed sex-shops only flies in
the face of almost every other concept of adult responsibility in the UK.
It can easily be argued that alcohol, tobacco, any access to non-U or PG
certified films and even television transmitted after the watershed should
not be allowed by adults who have children. After all, each of these
things could be perceived as dangerous to a child but adults are seen as
capable of being able to protect their children from these things. Indeed
alcohol abuse and smoking among minors tend to happen in areas outside of
parental control (i.e. not within houses but on street corners and in
parks). I would question whether there are many other laws within the UK
that disregard the rôle parents and guardians play in the upbringing of
their children in such a manipulative way as the Video Recordings Act
does.
The images on restricted
satellite channels are already designed to be viewed only by the persons
who the subscriber chooses and the safeguards that are in place are viewed
as acceptable at present for the current adult channels. To use the
accessibility by children to these images as a defence against
broadcasting would be seen as a huge insult to the majority of adults who
have children (except those who believe in a blanket ban on sexual images
of any sort anyway). To deny adults their right to access R18 films on
restricted channels because of children is twisting an argument to please
a minor section of the community who preach about censorship with an
almost religious zeal (for example, the former National Viewers' and
Listeners' Association, now called Netwatch). Their ideology on virtually
everything that should be broadcast is in conflict with the European
Convention on Human Rights anyway (Articles 8 & 10).
A quote from the British
Board of Film Classification is also relevant at this point:
'Experts in child abuse have
told the Board, for instance, that in the relatively few cases where
children are significantly harmed by viewing pornography, there is most
likely to be a pre-existing child harm context. In these circumstances,
the child protection legislation already on the statute book comes into
play.'
It is clear from their
evidence that they feel that there are few cases of children being harmed
by pornography. In those that exist, it is used by those who abuse
children. Known paedophiles can be stopped from subscribing to these
channels (by the broadcasters supplying lists of subscribers to a body who
holds the sex-offenders register, acting within the bounds of the Data
Protection Act). Two quotes, again from the BBFC research, highlight that
R18 films are specifically certified with the idea of making the material
unsuitable for the use of paedophiles:
'Paedophiles who use this method of abuse
are able to access this material anyway through the black-market and the
material contained within the R18 certification is unlikely to
It should also be borne in mind that
paedophiles may employ a range of other materials, including for example
legitimate sex education videos or sex education books.'
''R18's themselves do not, and
must not, include any material involving children in sexual activity. Nor
may they use adults role-playing sexual acts while dressed or presenting
as children. Any content which might be likely to give comfort or
assistance to paedophiles is prohibited.'
I would like also to
raise the point that films which tackle issues that go well beyond the
levels of acceptability of even the most broad minded adult can be seen
without the restrictions in place that affect R18 films. The unjustifiable
treatment of R18 material is shown when some of the most graphic horror
movies imaginable have been broadcast recently on digital television. I
would like to single out the film 'Salo' (otherwise known as '120 days of
Sodom') as a good example. This film depicts images that are quite frankly
sickening (rape, eating of faeces, torture, glowing references to obscene
sexual activity of themselves as children by the storytellers, a character
being scalped and another having an eyeball burst with a knife). As
someone who believes in age classification not censorship except in the
most extreme of cases I do not believe this film should be banned from
being broadcast (although I never wish to watch it a second time). I do
however know that a film such as this would have a far worse impact on any viewer than any R18 certified film. According to the presenter
(Mark Kermode) who talked about the film's history and impact before it
started, the film was granted an 18 certification by the BBFC mainly
because of the impact of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human
Rights. If this was the case then the treatment of R18 films by the
Government is extremely difficult for an intelligent person to fully
comprehend.
Technologic advances in digital television can stop any person that the
system owner wishes not to see specifically certified programmes
There is already a system
in place that stops children from accessing adult-orientated programmes on
digital television. The Independent Television Commission (ITC) has strict
rules governing these channels. I have included a quote from Iain Sproat
(Minister of State, Department of National Heritage):
'To prevent viewing by children, several
conditions must be met by the broadcasters. The channels are provided only
on payment of a premium rate fee in addition to the cost of subscription,
and must be specially selected by the customer. That is to say, they must
not be offered as part of a subscription package. They are encrypted,
which means that the signal is scrambled and can be unscrambled only by
the appropriate smart card. They may show material of a more explicit
nature than would be acceptable on mainstream channels, but only between
the hours of 10 pm and 5.30 am. I am told by the ITC that channels
restrict their explicit output to the hours between midnight and 5.30 am
and show only material that has been given an 18 certificate by the
British Board of Film Classification or has been edited to an equivalent
standard. They cannot show the more explicit sexual material which might
be granted a restricted 18 video classification.' (from Hansard, 15th
November 1996)
Mr Sproat details some of
the measures that were in place over five years ago that were deemed
acceptable to stop children viewing these channels. It is certain that
technology has progressed significantly in the intervening years allowing
the subscriber to use even more devices to stop unwanted access to these
channels. For instance, there is no mention of the fact that these
encrypted channels can be further protected by the use of codes (which
disable the system for ten minutes if three guesses are wrong and can be
changed at any time) and nor is there a mention of the fact that these
channels are capable of only being received on one set box (because
subscription is dependent on the card number). If the restrictions in
place in 1996 were suitable to prevent children accessing these channels
then the current systems are even more inaccessible and it should
therefore follow that there is no reason for the restriction on the
broadcasting of R18 films on these technologically advanced systems.
Furthermore, smart cards could be issued for these channels which could be
purchased only from licensed sex-shops and strict instructions regarding
the issuing of these cards can be given at this stage and proof required
that the person buying the card is the system owner. Without these cards
the channels would be non-accessible without the permission of the
subscriber. Furthermore, broadcast times are at late night hours anyway,
further restricting even the slightest hint of accessibility for children.
In order for the user to
access R18 film channels strict instructions should be issued relating to
the legal responsibilities attached to this privilege. Therefore the user
cannot claim to be ignorant of the conditions attached to the usage of the
card. I am certain that no instructions are given to a person who obtains
a video outwith the current legal framework (e.g. from unlicensed shops or
by mail order). There is little point having strict laws regarding the
distribution of hard-core videos when the vast majority are gained from
illegal sources and juries are unwilling to convict except in the more
extreme cases. If there were a decent avenue for legal distribution (which
the majority of the UK population seem to accept should be available) then
convictions for material gained illegally would be more forthcoming.
The restrictions that are
placed on digital television broadcasts are far more easily enforceable
than distribution by any other medium. Subscribers cannot access these
channels without being able to prove they are over eighteen (credit card
details, ownership of the digital television system). Anyone who has ever
entered a pub knows that many minors can bypass the age restrictions
placed on selling of alcohol and there is no reason to suppose that this
is different in the case of licensed sex-shops. I cannot conceive how a
minor can bypass the restrictions placed on even the current digital
television adult-themed channels and the present rules on these channels
can be further enhanced by the simple use of technology for broadcasting
R18 films.
There
is a growing culture of acceptance of the right for adults to view
pornography in the privacy of their own home
The main basis of this
assumption is a survey carried out by the National Centre for Social
Research in a report called 'British Social Attitudes: Focusing on
diversity- The 17th report: 2000/01 Edition'. This research
involved the questioning of a random selection of 3,000 people in the UK.
One of report's findings was the following:
'Cable, satellite and the Internet
What is acceptable on one channel is unacceptable on another. Regular TV
channels, along with general subscription channels and digital ones,
attract the most restrictive views. But subscription channels that
regularly show 'adult material' are given more leeway - only 17% would ban
a frank heterosexual sex scene from one of these channels. There is little
support for free access to such scenes on the World Wide Web - only 5%
think they should be freely available, and 38% would rather they were
banned altogether.'
If this report carried
out by such an influence body is to be believed then the Government is out
of step with the views of the general adult population. Eighty three
percent of those questioned would not object to these images being
broadcast on restricted adult subscription channels. The statistic
regarding the World Wide Web (accessible to children) shows that people
believe that adults should have the choice of what they can watch and
accept the restrictions on the adult subscription channels are suitable to
allow this choice. If this were not the case then the two figures would
have been very similar. The vast majority of the population does not
accept the Government's position on such censorship of subscription
channels and cannot justify ignoring this opinion especially with the
strict controls that these channels have in place already.
Even the British Board of
Film Classification, so long the bastion of censorship, has recognised
that public opinion has changed massively in recent times. They have
actively sought this opinion and have detailed some of their research on
their website:
'Consultation responses
1999-2000
The BBFC, through direct invitation to a wide range of public bodies,
individuals and interested companies and organisations, through general
publicity on radio and in the press, through its series of roadshows
around England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and through its
website, invited any comment on its draft Guidelines. Most comment
focussed on the main classification categories 'U' to '18'. Comment on the
proposed 'R18' standards ranged from the view that the 'R18' category
should be abolished (eg National Viewers and Listeners Association) to the
view that the guidelines should be substantially relaxed. The majority
favoured greater liberality.'
Where a Government tries to impose laws which
do not reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate, but rather
attempts to force onto it a moral code, then it is abusing it's power. The
Government is not the moral guardian of the country; this rôle should only
belong to general public. The Government position in respect of this
policy is not based on the facts available but is instead based on it's
own peculiar view of morality. We do not live in a dictatorship or a
religious state but in a society of free expression, liberty and
democracy. The Government is out of touch with public opinion on this
subject and, as the previous Conservative Government proved on it's
'Family Values' policies, the electorate does not like being preached to
about right and wrong - it is capable of deciding this for itself. The
Government has nothing to lose in allowing the broadcasting of frank
adult-themed channels as it is only following the wishes of the
electorate. To ignore the wishes of it's electorate is to be viewed as
aloof and 'out of touch', a mistake that the previous Conservative
Government never recovered from.
The
European Convention on Human Rights (2000) allows Freedom of Expression
within certain boundaries
Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights makes the current rules regarding the
non-broadcasting of R18 certificate films questionable. The relevant
article is:
Article 10: Freedom of Expression
-
Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to
receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent
States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or
cinema enterprises.
2.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation
or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received
in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.
Pornography comes under
this remit, as it requires the right to receive and impart information.
Further evidence of this is that the Article does not prevent the State
from requiring certain licensing of the media. It states that this freedom
is subject to the restrictions that are necessary in a democratic
society. It could be successfully argued that the restrictions placed on
the broadcasting of R18 films are not necessary in a democratic
society. Public opinion regarding the moral question has shown a
willingness to accept restricted broadcasting and technology exists which
protect the public safety and rights of others (children) from receiving
this information. There is little within this Article to defend the
Government's position on R18 films, particularly as these restrictions are
not treated as necessary by other major signatories to the
Convention and the burden would fall on the Government to prove why UK
citizens should be treated as different in this respect.
Article 8: 'Right to Respect for Private
and family Life' can also be used in the defence of showing R18 on
restricted channels. The Article states:
1.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life,
his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a
public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.
The fact that this
Article refers to the right to respect for a person's private life can be
inferred as the right of an adult to view pornography in the privacy of
his / her own home. As with Article 10, it would be extremely difficult to
prove that the Government policy regarding R18 films is necessary
for any of the reasons given.
The Government has placed
a lot of emphasis on the ECHR and sees it as an important tool for
protecting the rights of the UK population. It cannot expect to give
people rights through such a just and fair piece of legislation and then
try to manipulate the bill whenever it sees fit. The ECHR is there to
empower the population as well as protect it. If the Government is true in
accepting the rights granted by the ECHR then it must accept that the
legislation regarding the non-broadcasting of R18 films is an abuse of
these rights and should amend this part of the Video Recordings Act 1984
immediately as it is not in the spirit of the ECHR. The ECHR grants
Government the power to licence these broadcasts to stop children from
seeing these images but does not give it the power to stop the broadcasts.
We have adequate restrictions in place to stop children from seeing these
images and so there is no justification for not allowing broadcasting
under these restrictions.
It is almost certain that
if the Government was challenged in court over the legislation that does
not allow the broadcasting of R18 films then it is difficult to see how it
could win based on the rights given by the ECHR. The costs for this case
would undoubtedly cost the UK Government a huge amount of money (and
therefore the majority of taxpayers who do not believe in this
discriminatory policy anyway). The Government needs to recognise that its
stance is against the wishes of the majority of the population, against
the spirit of the ECHR and only serves to maintain the profits of the
black-market gangs. A law which actively seeks to restrict legitimate
consumers because of the lack of accessibility to the market place is
truly an abuse of power.
The
black-market in pornography is huge because of the restrictions placed in
law and is unlikely to subside given the Government's stance
The trade in hard-core
pornography in the UK is a highly lucrative business fed by the public's
desires to see this material. The current restrictions in place by the
Government in not allowing R18 films to be broadcast on restrictive
channels means that adults have found other sources to obtain it. The main
sources for gaining access to hard-core pornography are the following:
-
Mail order (usually from legitimate businesses abroad);
-
Unlicensed sex-shops;
-
Some local video shops (where they keep an under-the-counter
selection);
-
Video piracy of a friend's video (probably the most common);
-
Downloading from the internet (whole films can now be
obtained especially with the wider accessibility of broadband and then
copied onto video);
-
Smuggling in a video from abroad (usually when returning
from a holiday).
The one thing that should
strike anybody reading this article is the variety of ways the material
can be obtained. The other crucial thing is that these films are, with
very few exceptions, uncertified in the UK and therefore may carry levels
of sexual content that are well beyond the remit of the R18 certification.
The truth is that a large
section of the UK population has not only viewed pornographic material but
they have acted illegally to access it. All the limitation of R18 films to
licensed sex-shops does is feed the black-market. The vast majority of the
users of pornography only want to view images that are within the R18
certification category but are unwilling to seek out legitimate (and more
expensive) means to purchase it while they can use other easier and
cheaper methods. Indeed the lack of success in the policy has meant that a
large section of users are not even aware of the R18 films being
available.
The broadcasting of R18
certified films on restrictive satellite channels would give adults the
choice to watch films which they would otherwise find from illegal
sources. If the consumer can receive the film directly into their home
then they are unlikely to break the law and therefore will cut off a
significant part of the black-market trade.
One factor about licensed
sex-shops that seems to be ignored by the Government policy is the
unwillingness to use these shops. Sex is a private matter and people are
embarrassed about their own life style in this matter. Most people would
not enter their local sex-shop in case they saw somebody they knew and are
wary of the clientele associated with these shops. Therefore, in the
unlikely event that they will go to the trouble of obtaining a video from
a sex-shop, people are more likely to use sex-shops outwith their local
area and prefer the impersonality of the Soho district of London. This
area is littered with unlicensed sex-shops which are cheaper and have a
wider selection to the licensed shops anyway. Therefore people are more
likely to use these shops than the licensed ones. The Metropolitan Police
seem incapable of shutting down all of these shops and the only way of
doing it is to cut off their market by broadcasting certified films on
restricted channels.
The fact that only 204
R18 certificates had been issued when the BBFC replied to the Government
Discussion paper in 2000 shows that this market is not seen as viable to
many film distributors. Considering the USA alone produces over ten
thousand pornographic films each year, most of which would probably gain
the R18 certification, means that the distributors are not seeking to sell
the product legally in Britain. Instead, by using the legitimate trade in
mainland Europe, they have a distribution point in which they can reach
the UK market anyway. If R18 films were legally broadcast on digital
television then they would seek to be part of this market and would
therefore seek to achieve certification through the BBFC.
The current content of
the adult channels currently available do not satisfy the needs of most
users of pornography. To illustrate this I have found a quote from Iain
Sproat (Minister of State, Department of National Heritage) in November
1996:
'…..there are dedicated adult channels now
licensed in this country which broadcast adult erotica. Their programmes
are, broadly speaking, titillation.' (from Hansard)
If it is the case that
all the current adult channels do is offer titillation then this is
clearly not going to satisfy many. The Government needs to recognise that
these channels and their subscribers do not represent the vast numbers of
users of pornography who seek for more than simple 'titillation'. The
majority of content is obscure camera angles, slow motion images, shadows
and contorted faces (particularly the films from the US). The viewer is
left guessing as to whether anything is actually happening and can only be
frustrated at this lack of any realism. I would liken it to a Who-Done-It
book without many crucial pages, especially the final chapter, all the
viewer is likely to do is to seek out another medium that is more complete
and therefore more satisfying. To doubt this is not to understand human
nature.
The USA pornographic
industry has an annual output of $7 billion. The UK industry it must be
assumed is also very big as tastes do not vary much between these two
countries. However, I am sure that the vast majority of the profits made
in the UK go to the black-market. I think that the vast majority of the
population of this country would rather see this money going to
legitimate, tax-paying companies rather than the people who currently
control the black-market. This trade will not go away and these people
will continue to make huge profits as long as the Government pursues the
policy of intolerance which is against the wishes of the majority of the
population (see the National Centre for Social Research report previously
discussed) while using a defence which is unjustifiable and perhaps even
illegal (depending on the reader's interpretation of the Human Rights Act
1998).
Current legislation may actually increase exposure to sexual imagery by
children and also exposes adults to paedophilia
The current legislation regarding R18 films has meant
that many people rely solely on the internet for accessing pornography.
This will increase with the proliferation of broadband as whole films can
be downloaded in hours instead of days. Small clips and pictures can be
downloaded in seconds giving people access to virtually any kind of image
they wish to see. Adults who use the internet in order to access
pornography as well as other data are far less likely to use blocking
devices on their computer to stop access to pornographic sites. It follows
that any child who then uses that computer will also be able to access
pornography and may be subjected to pop-ups which have been created when
the adult used the computer. The child may also access files that have
been downloaded while the adult used the internet.
Adults will be far more willing to use filters that
block pornographic images and also remove any trace of pornography from
their computers if they have reasonable access to these images elsewhere
(i.e. via television). While the current restrictions are in place adults
will not use filters on their computers and may even severely restrict
access to their computer by their children because of the images
available (thus restricting the development of a child's computing
ability). Adults cannot always afford to spend 20 to 30 pounds on a R18
video and so will usually seek a cheaper alternative to obtaining these
images. The showing of R18 films on restricted viewing television would
enable this.
It is a very sad indictment of the internet community
that truly obscene images are easily available for downloading. Images of
bestiality and paedophilia can be found both via search engines and peer
to peer systems (P2P). Even innocent searches produce some of the most
suspect of images that can be available (e.g. by typing in a person's
name). In finding these images any reasonable person would be disgusted by
the availability of them. Some of these images can be falsely labelled and
they are downloaded by an unsuspecting user. The fact is that some people
do use these images for gratification and forcing adults to use the
internet to find pornography will only increase the amount of people who
may be slowly become attracted to these images. Allowing adults to access
pornography which complies with the boundaries set within the R18
classification on satellite television will remove a large amount of
exposure to illegal imagery and may cut out a significant amount of people
who may otherwise drift into enjoying paedophilia.
If the Government is serious about protecting
children then it should realise that the internet has grown in the United
Kingdom largely because of the availability of pornography. The current
restrictions do very little to stop the flow of pornography, it only
serves to restrict the choice available to the viewer. It is extremely
easy to download films from Germany, France or Scandinavia but not
necessarily easy for the viewer to understand them! The obvious way of
protecting children from exposure to pornography and adults from the worst
side of the internet is to remove the need to use the internet for
obtaining pornography. I believe the use of internet filters would
dramatically increase protecting children from the excesses of the
internet.
Conclusion
The current legislation is not working and is out of
step with the majority of our European partners. The only people who
benefit from the current legislation are those who work within the
black-market who supply the public with what they want and those involved
in the internet industry. The best people to protect children from
pornography are parents and it is frankly insulting that the Government
seems unable to grasp this concept. It is clear that the majority of the
British population is in favour of less censorship from Government bodies,
especially as technology now enables adults to decide what their children
can watch. The law should instead be geared far more to actively
protecting children from adults who do not take all reasonable steps to
protect their children.
The current law is a thinly veiled attempt to pander
to the wishes of the few who do not want any form of sexual imagery on
television. It is nothing short of an unwanted compromise between those
who favour strict censorship and those who favour very little censorship.
The Video Recordings Act is a badly written piece of legislation as it
does not take into view any significant advances in technology which
enable the system owner to stop completely any access to restricted
channels. The current legislation is also dangerously out of step with
European Union law (particularly the recent announcements on Audiovisual
policy) and will be challenged very shortly unless the issue is addressed.
While researching this subject it has made me realise
how undemocratic we actually are in this country and now have a far more
sceptical view of our politicians. I have now become far more european in
my outlook and can honestly say that I have given up on many aspects of
our so-called democracy. The future now seems to lie in a European union
that actually seems to believe in basic human rights and not a small
nation full of ignorance and bigotry.
