UK News

Open Rights Group and Tor have established that UK mobile networks such as Vodafone, O2 and 3 are blocking UK users' access to Tor's primary website (meaning the  Tor Project website, rather than connections to the Tor network) on pre-paid contractless accounts.

Tor helps people stay anonymous online. Some examples of how it has been used include those trying to avoid oppressive state censorship in places such as Iran, through to abuse victims in the UK.

There is a blog post by Jacob Appelbaum with more technical details about the blocking on UK mobile networks over at the Tor blog.

Searching for torproject.org reveals that it is blocked because it falls into the category of anonymiser. (Orange also say that they block content that falls into the anonymiser category - but it does not seem that Tor is blocked on Orange.) It's unlikely that mobile operators are targeting Tor, and more likely that anonymisation tools generally are blocked.

It was initially established that Tor was blocked initially through the new tool blocked.org.uk. openrightsgroup.org are asking for help in monitoring how blocking on mobile networks works by reporting when you come across incorrectly applied blocks.

Open Rights Group will be meeting with mobile operators over the next few weeks to talk about making sure that they can both help parents manage their children's mobile Internet use and avoid clumsy implemented blocking. Some are better at aspects of this than others (Orange provide an overview of the categories they block, for example.) But none implement a transparent and clear policy that puts users in charge.

Merseyside police have launched an investigation into images of a Liverpool fan apparently making racist taunts from the stands, as totally overblown claims of prejudice in sport risked overshadowing events on the pitch.

Patrice Evra of Senegalese descent, and the Manchester United captain, was repeatedly booed and subjected to chants of there's only one lying bastard. Seventeen fans were ejected from the stadium and two were arrested.

Liverpool FC said it was working closely with police over a photograph posted on Twitter that appeared to show one Liverpool fan making a monkey gesture.

What Gesture?

See article from bbc.co.uk

Perhaps more interesting was to note that the BBC in some sort of ultra political correctness decided to report the story without actually telling readers what the gesture was, or give any idea of what people were chanting etc.

But the BBC did give a better impression of the amount of police trouble one can get in for an almost childish insult:

A man has been arrested over an alleged gesture made at the FA Cup tie between Liverpool and Manchester United.

Merseyside Police said a 59-year-old from north Wales was arrested during the evening. Earlier the force said the incident was being investigated by detectives from the specialist hate crime team, which investigates racist and other crimes.

On Saturday night a police spokeswoman said: The man has been taken to a police station and will be questioned by officers. Merseyside Police would like to thank North Wales Police and Liverpool Football Club for their assistance with this matter.

Police have told a shopkeeper to remove a supposedly offensive window display of mannequin urinating the word sale

Philip Browne, who owns the menswear shop named after him in Norwich city centre received a phone call from a policeman after the local force received a complaint.

Browne said his show-stopping display had amused shoppers, but that police had told him to remove the dummy. The shopkeeper said: It has been there 10-12 days - it's just Great Yarmouth-style saucy, end-of-the-pier seaside humour. Everyone has been laughing about it.

But Browne has now been warned he could be breaking the 1986 Public Order Act. he said I think it's very unfair. We've had kids and families laughing at it. We've had old ladies in their 70s laughing.

Richard Evans, who works at Browne's and designed the eye catching display, says he hoped to grab customers' attention, not to offend anyone

One local resident who did not see the funny side is Stuart Goodman, who said he had been offended by the display. He said: I'm against censorship...BUT...this is disgracefully offensive.

With their weeing mannequin gone but not forgotten, Browne's took the time to laugh at the situation today, posting a photo response on the business's Facebook page. Cigarette in hand, the dummy can be seen on its knees, sponge in hand, cleaning the Sale sign off the wall. A caption written by Browne reads: Cleaning his disgraceful mess. Shame upon him!'

The BBFC published it's decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled The Best of Lucy Law. It cut 2:35s with the comment:

Cuts were required to remove the clear indication that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

This decision was published after the R v Peacock case where a jury unanimously cleared films depicting full on urolagnia of obscenity.

Sergio enquired of the BBFC whether anything has changed regarding the R V Peacock case and received an email from the BBFC:

The role of the BBFC is not to decide the law but to enforce it, and in this we will be guided by the law enforcement agencies. In relation to this case, the CPS have stated that the fact that a jury has acquitted someone does not mean that the guidance is incorrect.

There are no current plans to revise our Guidelines.

Yours sincerely,

J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)

The National Secular Society has submitted a response to the Police Powers Consultation, calling on the Government to remove insulting from Section 5 of the Public Order Act. A change in the law would protect freedom of expression for both the religious and non-religious. It would also lay down clearer guidelines for the police and direct them to focus on more serious cases.

The submission calls on the Government to recognise that the word insulting sets the bar for criminal offence far too low. The risk of being arrested can in itself have a chilling effect, preventing people from expressing legitimate views. Section 5 would retain threatening and abusive conduct to cover serious offences and there are other existing laws to protect the individual.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act currently states that it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

The NSS submission makes the case that insult is too subjective and nebulous a concept, and therefore open to abuse, partly because a subjective response is hard to challenge. It also identifies a growing trend to claim offence on behalf of a religion.

Other organisations such as Liberty, Justice, the Christian Institute and the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights are also calling for the removal of insulting. The law must recognise that groups like the Christian Institute have a right to freedom of expression but it must also ensure that insulting cannot be used by the religious to prevent debate, analysis or criticism.

Section 5 has been used against religious campaigners against homosexuality, a British National Party member who displayed anti-Islamic posters in his window and people who have sworn at the police. A teenage anti-Scientology protestor was arrested, as was a student for calling a police horse gay. Both were released without charge but changing the law would make guidance for the police clearer. At the moment, there is evidence that some officers are not clear about what does or does not constitute an insult.

The removal of the word insulting from section 5 would also bring English law into line with Scottish law, which works effectively without criminalising insulting. For example, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2011 explicitly excludes insult from the list of banned behaviour.

Blasphemy!
Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square Holborn, London
Saturday 28th January 2012

Presented by CFI UK and The Ethical Society.

This event focuses on the criminalization of religious hatred, defamation, and insult under European human rights, and how this functions as a de facto blasphemy law.

Introduced by Dr Stephen Law of Heythrop College, University of London and Editor of Think (Royal Institute Philosophy) Provost of Centre for Inquiry UK.

• 10.30am Registration
• 11.00 am Kenan Malik - Beyond the sacred
• 12.00 Andrew Copson - Blasphemy laws by the back door
• 1.30 Austin Dacey - The Future of Blasphemy
• 2.30 Jacob Mchangama - How hate speech laws are being used to enforce blasphemy norms (to be confirmed)
• 3.30 Maryam Nazazie - Blasphemy, Offence, and Islamophobia limiting Citizen Rights
• 4.30 End

Tickets are £10

It's been a dreadful week for free speech. A meeting at a prestigious London college had to be abandoned on Monday evening when members of the audience were filmed and threatened by an Islamic extremist.

Then the president of a student society at another London college was forced to resign after a Muslim organisation called for a ban on a joky image of the Prophet Mohammed.

Finally, on Friday, the author Sir Salman Rushdie cancelled an appearance at India's largest literary festival, saying he feared an assassination attempt after protests by Muslim clerics.

Almost as sinister as this series of events has been the reaction to them.

Ofcom has revoked the licence for Press TV to broadcast to the UK.

Ofcom cites The Communications Act 2003. Under section 362(2) of the Act, the provider of the service for the purposes of holding a licence is the person with general control over which programmes are comprised in the service.

Ofcom explained:

In the course of correspondence and meetings with Ofcom, statements made by Press TV Limited about the operation of the Licensed Service failed to satisfy Ofcom that the Licensee had general control over which programmes and other services were comprised in the Licensed Service. Ofcom therefore concluded that Press TV Limited had ceased to provide the Licensed Service in accordance with section 362(2) of the Act and that, accordingly, it was appropriate to revoke the Licence.

The Licence was revoked on 20 January 2012.

One Law for All is calling for a rally in defence of free expression and the right to criticise religion on 11 February 2012 in central London from 2-4pm.

We are also calling for simultaneous events and acts in defence of free expression on 11 February in countries world-wide.

The call follows an increased number of attacks on free expression in the UK, including a 17 year old being forced to remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon or face expulsion from his Sixth Form College and demands by the UCL Union that the Atheist society remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon from its Facebook page. It also follows threats of violence, police being called, and the cancellation of a meeting at Queen Mary College where One Law for All spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to deliver a speech on Sharia. Saying Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?, an Islamist website called for the disruption of the meeting. Two days later at the same college, though, the Islamic Society held a meeting on traditional Islam with a speaker who has called for the death of apostates, those who mock Islam, and secularist Muslims.

Whilst none of this is new, recent events reveal an increased confidence of Islamists to censor free expression publicly, particularly given the support received from universities and other bodies in the name of false tolerance, cultural sensitivity and respect.

The right to criticise religion, however, is a fundamental right that is crucial to many, including Muslims.

Clearly, the time has come to take a firm and uncompromising stand for free expression and against all forms of threats and censorship.

11 February is our chance to take that stand.

You need to be there.

Enough is enough.

Next steps for protecting children online
Thursday 26th January

This seminar will bring together key perspectives from policymakers, interest groups and businesses on next steps for enabling children to surf the web, access online communities and partake in culturally rich content without exposure to age restricted products, explicit content and potential personal danger.

It is scheduled following the report to Ministers of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection - delegates will assess the practical options for providing what the Culture Secretary has called an active choice about using parental controls, such as age verification tools, website monitoring and methods of filtering content used by online services - and review next steps for policy.

Keynote addresses

• Lynne Featherstone MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities and Criminal Information, Home Office;

• Claire Perry MP, Chair, Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection

• Andy Baker, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP)

Other confirmed speakers include:

• Jeremy Barlow, Relationship and Channel Manager, BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT;

• John Carr, Secretary, UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety;

• Luc Delany, European Policy Manager, Facebook;

• Susie Hargreaves, Chief Executive Officer, Internet Watch Foundation;

• Andrew Heaney, Executive Director, Strategy and Regulation, TalkTalk;

• Peter Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, The Authority for Television On-Demand (ATVOD);

• Claire Lilley, Senior Policy Analyst, NSPCC;

• David Mahoney, Director of Content Policy, Ofcom;

• Alison Marshall, Public Affairs Director, UNICEF UK (UK Committee for the United Nations International Children's Fund);

• David Miles, Director, Europe, Middle East and Africa, Family Online Safety Institute;

• Professor Andy Phippen, Professor of Social Responsibility in Information Technology, Plymouth Business School, Plymouth University;

• Alexandra Scott, Senior Public Affairs Executive, Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB)

• Jonny Shipp, Head of Digital Confidence, Telefonica.

Chair:

• Helen Goodman MP, Shadow Minister of State for Culture, Media and Sport

• Caroline Dinenage MP, Member, Parliamentary Enquiry into Online Child Protection

Tempting Failure
Performance Space, Hackney Wick, London
4th March 2012

It has grown out of its origins to represent more than itself. 11 pieces were curated by the body-artist Thomas John Bacon to engage with an ethos of Tempting Failure as part of a new live art & transgressive performance platform. Each work selected sought to engage with the role that sacrifice may play for the artist who challenges their practice or Being in the production of the living artifact: Be it via physical means or through a sense of exposure. Be it metaphorical or actual. And most importantly, be it through the risk of failure. These were all areas of personal exploration for the curator, linked to his PhD research and forthcoming installation [RE]authoring through Sacrifice.

But this platform, originally set to be staged in Bristol was a victim of censorship, something that Thomas John Bacon has experienced on more than one occasion due to the type of work he produces. This lead the platform to be rehoused at ]performance s p a c e [ in London and has seen it grow to stand for more than its original enquiry but represent a statement that art cannot and should not be held back or hidden for the sake of others protection.

UK censors are partnering with Mumsnet and Netmums to push ParentPort - the website where parents can post complaints about supposedly inappropriate programmes, ads, products and services

It seems that there has been a drop in the number of comments and complaints.

The government-backed ParentPort - a joint initiative by censors including the BBFC, ASA, Ofcom, the BBC Trust and the Press Complaints Commission, was launched in Octobe.

Complaints and comments are thought to have spiked in the weeks after its launch but have since fallen off.

The censors declined to provide figures.

Sometimes you have to feel sorry for the police. Beyond already dealing with a raft of ill-considered laws, politicians also want them to act against insulting behaviour. Section five of the Public Order Act is so broad that almost any protester on any subject can be arrested and fined for harassment, causing alarm or distress.

It's not merely theoretical; many ludicrous cases have been prosecuted. The police arrested a student who held up a sign stating Scientology was a cult -- surely a matter of opinion? Kyle Little, a 16-year-old from Newcastle, was fined £50 with £150 costs for saying woof to a labrador dog in front of police officers. Eventually the magistrates' decision was overturned by a crown court. The very arbitrary nature of deciding what is insulting gives the police a power they can misuse. After a night out with friends, Sam Brown asked a police officer: Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay? Police took Brown to court after he refused to pay an £80 fine. The CPS eventually dropped the case.

...Read the full article

In an exclusive extract from You Can't Read This Book, the Observer columnist Nick Cohen presents a damning indictment of how the English legal system helps the wealthy and powerful suppress inconvenient truths:

At their best, journalists expose the crimes of the powerful and there were plenty of powerful people worthy of examination in the Britain of the early 2000s. London was awash with money as it competed with Manhattan to be the hub of global finance.

If journalists tried to do what they should do and investigate them, Britain also gave the oligarchs a further privilege: the power to enforce a censorship that the naive supposed had vanished with the repressions of the old establishment. Among the many attractions London offered the oligarchs was a legal profession that served them as attentively as the shop assistants in Harrods food hall.

With an aristocratic prejudice against freedom of speech, the judges imposed costs and sanctions on investigative journalism that would have been hard to endure in the best of times, but were unbearable after the internet had undermined the media's business models. Instead of aiming its guns at the worst of British writing, the law of libel aimed at the bravest.

...Read the full article

A talk on sharia and human rights by NSS Council Member Anne Marie Waters' at Queen Mary College, London was cancelled at the last moment because of an Islamist who made serious threats against everyone there.

The talk was due to take place on 16 January but before it started, a man entered the lecture theatre, stood at the front with a camera and filmed the audience. He then said that he knew who everyone was, where they lived and if he heard anything negative about the Prophet, he would track them down.

The man also filmed students in the foyer and threatened to murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, apparently there to support him. Students were told by security to stay in the lecture theatre for their own safety.

Jennifer Hardy, President of Queen Mary Atheism Society, who organised the event said:

This event was supposed to be an opportunity for people of different religions and perspectives to debate, at a university that is supposed to be a beacon of free speech and debate.

Only two complaints had been made to the Union prior to the event, and the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. These threats were an aggressive assault on freedom of speech and the fact that they led to the cancellation of our talk was severely disappointing for all of the religious and non-religious students in the room who wanted to engage in debate.

The police were contacted about the incident.

Update: Pitiful Security

25th January 2012. See article from freethoughtblogs.com by Maryam Namazie

My One Law for All Co-Spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to speak at a meeting on Sharia Law and Human Rights at the University of London last night.

It was cancelled by the Queen Mary Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society organisers after police had to be called in due to Islamist threats. One Islamist filmed everyone at the meeting and announced he would hunt down those who said anything negative about Islam's prophet. Outside the hall, he threatened to kill anyone who defamed the prophet. Reference was made to the Jesus and Mo cartoon saga at UCL.

The University's security guard -- a real gem --arrived first only to blame the speaker and organisers rather than those issuing death threats. He said: If you will have these discussions, what do you expect? Err, to speak without being threatened with death maybe?

A Tory Councillor has been suspended from his job for 20 weeks and will be forced to undertake diversity training, after he called members of the public retards.

Hull City Council received two complaints after Councillor John Fareham used Twitter to insult people who had protested against public spending cuts. He tweeted:

15 hours in Council today very hard hitting day and the usual collection of retards in the public gallery spoiling it for real people.

The council's PC standards committee claimed that his actions breached its code of conduct. Chair of the sub-committee Sheelagh Strawbridge said:

The committee concluded that Councillor Fareham may have caused the authority to breach equality enactments and had brought his office and the Council into disrepute.

The Duchess of York, who faces charges in Turkey for going undercover and secretly filming children at a state-run home for a 2008 documentary, canceled a recent trip to the United States because of the case, a source and her spokesman said.

The United States and Turkey have an extradition treaty and the cancellation raised the question of whether Sarah Ferguson is avoiding the United States because she fears being sent to Turkey.

The duchess was accompanied by one of her two daughters, Princess Eugenie, to film the ITV Tonight program in Turkey. An ITV press statement at the time of the film's broadcast in 2008 said the duchess, as part of a reporting team, had gone undercover in one of Turkey's worst institutions -- capturing images that will shock and horrify. The hard-hitting program was intended to help investigate the treatment of mentally and physically disabled children, ITV said.

Ferguson feels the work she did in Turkey was completely valid and consistent with her ongoing support for humanitarian causes, spokesman James Henderson told CNN. Ferguson is consulting rights lawyers as well as attorneys in Turkey as she decides what to do next, he said.

The Ankara prosecutor's office in Turkey accused the duchess of violating the private lives and rights of five children while filming a program for Britain's ITV network, Turkey's semiofficial Anatolian news agency reported last week.  Discussing the case, the Ankara chief prosecutor asked for a prison term of up to 22 years, six months, Turkish state TV reported.

What Ferguson is accused of in Turkey would not constitute a crime in Britain.

The Home Office confirmed that it has received a formal request for mutual legal assistance concerning Sarah, Duchess of York.

Britain's Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre said more can be done to safeguard children who use the Twitter website.

Apparently social networking sites Facebook and Bebo both report far more incidents of illegal activity to Ceop than Twitter does. Perhaps the 140 character tweets are not the most likely communication method for grooming and the like.

Peter Davies, head of Ceop, said:

Providers of online services have a responsibility to safeguard their environment in order to minimise the risk to children and close down opportunities for offenders.

Many companies work closely with us to enhance their ability to do this, including Facebook and Bebo.

The centre does receive reports relating to material on Twitter but it's important to say these amount to a very small proportion of 1,000 reports a month relating to a wide range of online environments.

Twitter have removed illegal images and other content on our request.

We believe more can be done around the moderation of Twitter feeds and the strengthening of Twitter's reporting mechanisms.

It's important that all providers have in place robust and effective reporting mechanisms so that when illegal, offensive or inappropriate material is posted it is quickly removed and reported to law enforcement as necessary.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is a menace to free speech and the right to protest. It has been repeatedly abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors, to variously arrest gay rights campaigners, Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology and even students making jokes.

It is time section 5 was repealed, to allow freedom of expression without the threat of arrest. The opportunity for reform exists. The current Protection of Freedoms Bill could easily be amended.

Some MPs and Lords want to amend it. Alas, the Con-Dem government is hesitating, despite its professed commitment to restore many of civil liberties that were whittled away during the Blair-Brown era.

...Read the full article

The High Court has ruled that the Justice Secretary's refusal to grant the BBC permission to have and to broadcast a face-to-face interview with terrorism suspect Babar Ahmad was unlawful.

The BBC and one of its home affairs correspondents, Dominic Casciani, had applied for permission to conduct the interview with Ahmad, who is currently detained at HMP Long Lartin, and is fighting extradition to the USA. The BBC also wished to broadcast the interview. The Justice Secretary refused the permission, which refusal the BBC challenged in a judicial review claim.

Ahmad, a British Muslim, was first arrested in 2003 but released without charge after six days. In July 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction again him in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000. However, he was arrested again in August 2004 following a request by the US for his extradition. The Home Secretary made an extradition order in 2005, which was followed by long running legal proceedings in the domestic courts and in Strasbourg.

In the meantime Ahmad has remained in detention for over seven years without charge or trial.

...Read the full article

It's a very worrying question, with an extremely worrying answer coming from some members of the police force and even more so from Police Community Support Officers. Having several friends in the police, I know for a fact that nowhere in their training does it state that officers should censor this country's free press.

As long as members of the press aren't breaking police cordons, or on private property after being asked to leave, the police (and I include PCSOs in this) have no power, nor rights to interfere with a photographer going about doing their job of gathering news. In fact, our country goes to war to help people being oppressed by various regimes, yet we find on occasion that we are being oppressed much closer to home, not by fundamentalists or dictators, but by our own police services up and down the county.

Sadly the court case at the Old Bailey, where two of the racist murderers of Stephen Lawrence were finally jailed, illustrated just how ill-informed some members of the police and PCSOs are. Just what is the motivation to stop a story like this being covered? Did these officers in question want to protect the racist murderers from the photographers' cameras or not allow the same cameras to record the dignified Lawrence family after the verdict? This behaviour is absolutely baffling.

...Read the full article

As a hip-hop artist, live performance is not only the bread and butter of my career, as it is for all musicians, but also the lifeblood of my existence. Hip-hop is a direct form of communication and live performance is the opportunity to interact directly with your audience -- when your ideas truly come to life.

It's because of this that I have always perceived the 696 form, the now notorious risk assessment form that requests London venues and promoters to describe the type of music being played, to be cause for great concern. It especially worries me when I hear reports of performers being searched by police prior to stepping on stage, as was reported this week. Where is the line to be drawn? Actions like these serve only to humiliate the performers and alarm their audience unnecessarily.

...

The 696 form essentially serves as a means for the Met to place unnecessary demands upon venues and promoters and in some circumstances almost extort them all in the name of ensuring security. There are countless stories of the Met issuing ultimatums on the very day an event is due to take place. Demanding, for instance, that venues and promoters shell out thousands of pounds to cover the costs for extra security and even, in some instances, the presence of armed police. The only other option is that the event does not take place at all.

...Read the full article

The podcast is introduced as follows:

Well this week it's all about sex again! And you really probably should ensure your children aren't in the back seats if you're listening in the car. Awkward questions might abound. Ben, Kirstin and regular contributor, Jonathan Holt, talk with Alex Dymock once more following the verdict in the Southwark Obscene Publications Trial and are joined by Myles Jackman, one of Michael Peacock's defence team and journalist David Allen Green to discuss the merits of repealing the 1959 Act and what this verdict means for future prosecutions.

...Listen to the podcast

Sergio has also kindly listed articles discussing this R v Peacock case:

blog.indexoncensorship.org/2012/01/06/obscenity-trial-verdict-michael-peacock-pornography/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Peacock
www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/?p=2042
janefae.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/news-feed-an-end-to-obscenity-law/
lawandsexuality.blogspot.com/2012/01/fisting-in-courtroom.html
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/crown-court-prosecution
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/peacock-trial-fisting
obscenitylawyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-of-decade.html
strangethingsarehappening.com/news-obscenitytrial.html
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/07/obscene-publications-act-future-doubt
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/06/obscenity-trial-law-digital-age
www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blogs/an-obscene-waste-money
www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/bottoms-and-broomsticks
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/obscenity-law-depraved-trial
www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/01/06/comment-are-we-seeing-the-death-of-obscenity
www.theweek.co.uk/law/44124/sleazy-michael-wins-obscenity-trial-over-fisting-dvds
quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/freedom-in-a-puritan-age-or-not/
timeritous.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/r-v-peacock-the-last-obscene-publications-act-prosecution/
sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-ends.html
www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=19392
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16443697
mag.bent.com/news/not-guilty-verdict-in-gay-porn-obscenity-trial/

Open Rights Group (ORG) are researching into the accuracy of the website blocking employed by mobile phone companies. The group wrote in its newsletter:

Last month, we asked ORG supporters to help us find sites that were being blocked by the default Adult filter on their mobile phones. Lots of you replied and asked to get involved. And thanks to that extraordinary team - we've launched a tool to report what sites are being blocked and by whom.

We are getting regular reports and testing blocks on every mobile network. We're seeing just how bad mobile blocking is, and how bad the networks are at dealing with complaints. Forums and joke sites get banned. So do churches. Some MPs want to extend default adult censorship to Internet at home as well: but we are already seeing how bad it is on mobile networks. ORG has already been invited to talk to O2 about their systems, as a result of this campaign.

Report blocked websites at blocked.org.uk

Meanwhile thank to a reader who wrote to MelonFarmers:

Just to let you know; the mobile network Three are blocking access to your site through their 3G networks - The site works fine on Wi-Fi, but on 3G you get asked to contact Three to get a pin to unblock the site, as they have it listed as an Adult content site.

They charge 99p to allow access to adult sites (And it's not straightforward, takes a while to find the right place to do it.). 

They have also blocked Movie-Censorship.com, same reason as above.

A British student can be extradited to the United States to face charges of copyright infringement over a website he ran offering links to pirated films online, a court has ruled.

Richard O'Dwyer, whose site TV Shack made more than £150,000 in advertising revenues, according to US prosecutors, is thought to be the first person extradited to America on such charges. If convicted in New York, he faces jail.

Speaking after the hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, the 23-year-old said he felt like a guinea pig for the US justice system. His lawyer argued that his site hosted no illegal content, but merely directed users to where it was held online, and said that his client would appeal the ruling.

What do you think of the Scottish Government's anti-bigot bill to help curb sectarian aggression?

It's basically an attack on freedom of speech. It's the ruling classes telling the working classes what to say and think. Will middle class rugby fans be arrested for singing anti-English songs? The idea is laughable.

...

Of course, some of the songs and words contravene laws on racial hatred, and maybe even on inciting violence. But that's a debate that needs to be had. Why aren't we having that? Because it would be really fucking awkward. Sectarianism is a real problem, but it should be addressed by people engaging with each other -- reconciliation. If we were really serious about this the first step is to end religious segregation in schools. It's a Scottish reaction to think we can get rid of all this with a piece of paper, just so we don't have to make eye contact, talk to each other, agree. In my time in Glasgow I've known a lot of Catholics and a lot of Protestants and you know what? Scratch the surface and we're all the same. Total cunts.

...Read the full interview

Chris Ashford has written an excellent report of the trial:

On Friday 6 January 2012, a historic case came to a conclusion in Courtroom 7 of Southwark Crown Court in Courtroom 7. Michael Peacock was unanimously acquitted, after a four-day trial that saw the outdated obscenity law of England and Wales in the dock.

Peacock had been charged under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for allegedly distributing obscene gay DVDs, which featured fisting, urolagnia ('watersports') and BDSM.

Peacock had advertised the DVDs through Craigslist, his own website (which also promoted his services as a male escort), and in a magazine. The Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command (SCD9) or London's Metropolitan Police --- which encompasses the former Obscene Publications Squad --- saw the advert and began an investigation.

...Read the full article

The 12th annual Index Freedom of Expression Awards will be held on 28 March.

They will honour those who, often at great personal risk, have given voice to issues and stories from around the globe that would otherwise have passed unnoticed.

Nominations are now being accepted for the awards.

Censorship Lifetime Achievement award

Recognising a lifetime spent in the defence of free expression

Journalism award

This award recognises journalism of dogged determination and bravery

Innovation award

This award recognises the use of computer or internet technology to foster debate, argument or dissent. Nominations can also include those who enhance online freedom through the use of new technologies

Arts Award

Recognising visual and creative arts that support or promote freedom of expression, or artists facing censorship for their work

Advocacy award

Awarded to campaigners who have fought repression, or have struggled to change political climates and perceptions

The International Union of Sex Workers is delighted by the unanimous verdicts of not guilty on all counts in the trial of Michael Peacock that concluded at Southwark Crown Court on Friday 6th January.

Michael's courage and determination in pursuing this case was the first challenge to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for many years. Understandably, most people charged with offences under this Act plead guilty as an innocent plea followed by a court case that returns a guilty verdict will result in a harsher sentence. This has the effect of leaving police and CPS opinion of what is obscene untested.

The DVDs that were the subject of this prosecution were sold through Michael's website, sleazymichael.com, and on Craigslist. They contained scenes of male fisting, urination and BDSM. Michael was charged with six counts of publishing obscene articles likely to deprave and corrupt. The jury saw a substantial amount of the content which the police and CPS deemed illegal and required less than two hours deliberation to return unanimous not guilty verdicts on all counts. Therefore material showing the activities depicted is no longer defined as obscene in law.

It's time to decriminalise sex between consenting adults. Lady Chatterley trial of 1960 (R v Penguin Books) is still quoted as precedent in obscenity trials; the jury's response in R v Peacock shows public opinion has clearly moved on considerably.

Catherine Stephens, activist with the International Union of Sex Workers, says:

In a week that has also seen the collapse of the Sheila Farmer trial for brothel keeping, it is time to decriminalise the sexual activities of consenting adults, whether or not they are in front of a camera. These two trials were an appalling waste of public resources: the law as it stands does nothing to enhance the safety either of the general public or those who work in the adult industry and often actively increases the dangers we face.

Michael Peacock says:

Responsible treatment of pornography would allow adults who want to access sexually explicit materials freedom to do so and protect those who are underage or do not wish to view such content. The current legal framework fails to do either of these things. I give my thanks to my legal team at Hodge Jones Allen, the judge who heard my case and the twelve people who served on the jury whose maturity and commonsense has changed the law.

Hazel Eracleous, Chair of Backlash comments:

Backlash is delighted that a jury decided it is no longer appropriate to prosecute people based on consensual adult sexual activity. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media. We will continue to raise awareness of the unseen consequences of these draconian laws, provide legal advice and defend those same consenting adults caught up in the Extreme Pornography and Obscene Publication laws.

Myles Jackman, solicitor at Hodge Jones Allen with a specialist interest in obscenity cases states:

This case shows the Obscene Publications Act is no longer effective in the age of the internet.

See also Obscenity trial: the law is not suitable for a digital age from guardian.co.uk by Myles Jackman.

See also Interview with Myles jackman: Freedom Fister from vice.com

Jerry Barnett, Chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA), says:

We congratulate Michael Peacock on his victory. The idea that depictions of consenting adult sexual activity can be deemed obscene is a throwback to an earlier age. The adult industry continues to develop and adopt technologies that prevent children from accessing sexual content. We see no need for adults to be protected from it -- a free society should protect the rights of adults to participate in any consenting sexual act they choose.

In the Press

The judgement seems to have captured little attention from the newspapers with the exception of the Guardian/Observer which has published several items about the news.

See article from guardian.co.uk

Feona Attwood of Sheffield Hallam University, who lectures in sex, communication and culture, and who attended the trial, said:

I think the law does not make sense. All the evidence that was heard was about whether the material had the ability to harm and corrupt. The question now is, what does that actually mean? What is significant is that the jury understood [the issues at stake].

Attwood, like others experts in the field, believes that the law has been overtaken by new understandings of the way in which people think about sexuality and the depiction of sex including whether a process actually exits that leads to moral corruption.

Others who have been deeply critical of the attempted prosecution include solicitor and New Statesman legal blogger David Allen Green. Writing during the case he said:

Obscenity is a curious criminal offence, and many would say that it now has no place in a modern liberal society, especially when all that is being portrayed in any obscene material are the consensual (if unusual) sexual acts between adults.

See also It's time to abolish the obscenity law from newstatesman.com by Nichi Hodgson

Other Comments

See also Obscenity trial ends from sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com by Dr Brooke Magnanti

See also An end to Obscenity Law? from janefae.wordpress.com by Jane Fae

See also 'Obscenity Trial Of The Century' Ends In Acquittal from strangethingsarehappening.com

See also The End of the English Obscene Publications Act from allvoices.com by Mike Freeman

And from the not so delighted

Few nutter campaigners have commented so far.

From article at bbc.co.uk.

The BBC prompted a few words from Vivienne Pattison

Mediawatch-UK said the Obscene Publications Act needed to be tightened up. Its director Vivienne Pattison says the case illustrates the problem with the act:

There is not a list which says what is obscene and what is not. It makes it incredibly difficult to get a conviction on that.

As a society we are moving to a place where porn is considered as kind of fun between consenting adults, but porn is damaging.

Jeremy Clarkson, the TV presenter, has been ludicrously criticised for making trivial tasteless comments about the Morecambe Bay cockle picking tragedy in which 23 Chinese migrant workers died.

In a column for The Sun newspaper, Clarkson mocked the sport of synchronised swimming as Chinese women in hats, upside down, in a bit of water, adding: You can see that sort of thing on Morecambe Beach. For free.

Hardly worthy of mention but Tracy Brown, a Morecambe town councillor had a little whinge. She said:

I choose to ignore such comments and treat them with the contempt they deserve. In fact, this is beneath contempt. He is just trying to make himself look big at other people's expense. Many people around here were deeply affected by the tragedy.

But then the tiff escalated to international levels: Ms Dai Qingli, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Embassy, went well overboard. She said:

We deplore and oppose Mr Clarkson's comments, which are insulting and show a woeful disrespect of decency and moral standards. We regret that The Sun has publicised such remarks.

R v Peacock

Michael Peacock has been acquitted of all charges after a unanimous jury decision to find Peacock not guilty on 6 counts of obscenity.

Michael Peacock (referred to in the gay porn world as Sleazy Michael) had been charged for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs including representation of gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM.

The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture). Also there was an example of a staged non consensual scene.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

Peacock was represented by Nigel Richardson and Sandra Paul of Hodge Jones and Allen

Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law, said this outcome was a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age.

In a tweet, Jackman said that SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing with human exploitation and organised crime, will meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review guidelines on obscenity.

And of course the authorities will be considering whether the law itself now needs changing. No doubt nutter campaigners will now be pushing for something new to replace the OPA now that it no longer supports their censorial views.

Speculation: So what may be the outcome at least in terms of BBFC censorship of R18s?

The BBFC have been cutting all such material citing the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act. But now of course this will change. The BBFC will still be at liberty to cut scenes off their own bat. And indeed the board has been regularly cutting scenes involving penetration by objects that could possibly result in harm justified via its own guidelines.

I think there will be a few changes welcomed by all sides. The current prohibition of female squirting leaves everyone totally baffled as to why. This prohibition can now be rapidly dropped. Perhaps urolagnia can now be generally allowed albeit with restrictions when it is considered by the censors to be degrading.

Perhaps something similar with fisting which could be generally allowed with a proviso that it must not be seen to be causing any discomfort to those participating.

The BDSM issue is not going to be easy. The current ban is at least easy to explain. To allow any level of hurt beyond trifling may prove very difficult to define. Maybe it is still banned by legislation examined during the notable Spanner Case, the judgement of which basically disallows people from giving consent to be hurt. So perhaps the BBFC will just switch justifications but continue to ban BDSM.

And I don't suppose that the non-consensual scene will impact BBFC guidelines at all. This will no doubt continue to be banned from R18s.

Index on Censorship Chief Executive John Kampfner will be stepping down at the end of March. His announcement brings to an end a three-and-a-half year tenure that has seen Index become one of the world's leading free expression advocacy organisations.

John will be working with Google as a part-time consultant on free expression and cultural issues and with the Global Network Initiative from 1 February, as well as undertaking various journalism and book-writing ventures.

Jonathan Dimbleby, Chair of Index on Censorship, said:

I'm very sad to see John depart. He has transformed Index's profile and practices, turning it into the 'go to' destination for anyone interested in free expression and censorship questions in the UK and around the world. His successor will have a great opportunity to build on those achievements. I am delighted that John wishes to be involved with our work in other ways in future.

John Kampfner said:

It's been a fantastic privilege to run an organisation of such passion and stature. I'm particularly proud of the work we've done to transform English libel law, our strong editorial work and our campaigns for freedom of expression around the world. I said originally that I wanted to help take Index to a new level, which I believe has been achieved. I pay tribute to the dedication of our staff and trustees and wish them all success in the future.

Olympic organisers have set out internet censorship rules for the 70,000 Games Maker volunteers, including a ban on pictures or posts featuring backstage VIPs.

The rules are set out in a document in the Games Makers' area of Locog's website. The document asks people not to mention details about their role, location or about athletes, celebrities and dignitaries.

It says Games Makers should remember to avoid making any public statement on any subject relating to London 2012 without the prior approval of the Locog Communications team - including agreeing to attend any event to speak about any aspect of London 2012.

It sets out how the public realm of social media could pose a risk to the Games in terms of reputation and safety and security.

In a what to do and what not to do section, it warns volunteers:

• not to disclose their location
• not to post a picture or video of Locog backstage areas closed to the public
• not to disclose breaking news about an athlete
• not to tell their social network about a visiting VIP, eg an athlete, celebrity or dignitary.
• not to get involved in detailed discussion about the Games online
• but they can retweet or pass on official London 2012 postings.

The 3rd January 2012 marks the first day of the most significant obscenity trial of the decade; which will ultimately clarify the law on the representation of gay fisting, urolagnia as well as BDSM.

The defendant in the case, Michael Peacock, is charged on indictment with numerous offences under the Obscene Publications Act for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

In this trial, which will be heard before the Southwark Crown Court, the films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture).

These activities feature on the current list of what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) currently consider to be obscene. Ultimately though, it is a matter for a jury to decide whether these acts are obscene by virtue of whether they deprave and corrupt the viewer.

Interestingly this case seems to have found unofficial tacit support from the BBFC; and the Metropolitan Police's Abusive and Extreme Images Unit (the Met's old obscene publications squad is now part of SCD9): on the basis that this case will establish whether the depiction of fisting and urination pornography is legal or not.

Hence, if the jury decides that such pornography is not obscene, on the basis that it does not deprave and corrupt the viewer; then it is entirely likely that both the producers and distributors of pornography will make such material available for sale, for example via licensed sex shops.

Consequently, this significant obscenity prosecution will either reaffirm or rearrange the boundaries of obscenity law.

Mr Peacock is represented by  Hodge Jones and Allen LLP..

...Read the full article

Update: Follow Live on Twitter

5th January 2012.  See article from lawandsexuality.blogspot.com

The #ObscenityTrial involving the issue of fisting (among others) goes into day three today.

If you're not already doing so, be sure to follow on twitter the excellent activist and scholar, @lexingtondymock. I'd also suggest following the journalist @NichiHodgson. Both have been providing fascinating coverage through their live tweets from the courtroom.

Many of the exchanges today would be comical, were they not so serious.