|
|
|
|
 | 29th December
2014
|
|
|
Censorship, Regulation in the U.K. Gets Underway. By Ben Yates See article from xbiz.com |
|
UK adult websites are facing the prospect that they will only be able to offer a few hundred BBFC censored titles to compete with foreign websites offering tens of thousands of uncensored titles
|
|
|
| 22nd December 2014
|
|
| 21st December 2014. See article from
newswire.xbiz.com |
The UK's new internet censorship rules banning much mainstream porn content don't always ban face-sitting, ATVOD said in a closed newsletter disseminated yesterday. ATVOD, which censors video-on-demand in Britain, revealed draconian new rules
for the porn industry nearly three weeks ago. Under the new rules, introduced through the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014, content that would be cut by the BBFC is banned from UK VOD services. Now as the BBFC cuts at least some content
from about 15% of all mainstream R18's then at least this percentage of mainstream porn videos are now illegal to include on UK websites. In addition websites will probably have to self censor another 15% just in case the material may cross undefined
lines. Actually the BBFC cut 50% of R18s in the last calendar week for trivial and largely unpredictable reasons. This unpredictability could leave British webmasters with the only practical option to only include videos with an official BBFC R18
rating and all the trivially prohibited bits obligingly cut out. (Which is probably one of the intentions of the new law). Of course the rub is then that there are relatively few official R18s. A British website offering a few hundred censored videos
would be competing with US websites offering a tens of thousands of uncensored videos. UK media censor Ofcom has issued a revised designation allowing ATVOD the powers it needs to enforce the new rules. Yesterday, in its newsletter, ATVOD
clarified some details of what it will be focusing on while enforcing the new censorship rules: Contrary to some press reports, the new regulations do not ban outright activities such as 'face-sitting' or 'spanking.
... HOWEVER ... they do mean that pornographic material which focuses on the restriction of blood or oxygen to the brain (which is potentially fatal) or on the infliction of lasting physical harm is now prohibited on U.K.
VOD services, as are pornographic scenarios featuring simulated incest [currently a very popular genre], rape or role playing as a child.
The new discriminatory rules also forbid U.K.-based online adult operators
from distributing content that includes acts of female ejaculation, fisting and other types kinky content. In the newsletter, ATVOD also hinted what might be next for foreign porn sites that allow access in the U.S.: A licensing regime. ATVOD said
that it has worked with the U.K. payments industry --- including Visa Europe, MasterCard, PayPal, UK Cards Association, British Bankers' Association and Payments Council --- to design a process which would enable payments to be prevented from the U.K. to
foreign porn services that allow children to access hardcore pornography. Preventing payments from U.K. customers would disrupt the existing business model which is based on providing some content free of charge in
order to attract visitors who are then encouraged to purchase premium subscription services. It would provide an incentive for foreign porn websites to introduce age-verification mechanisms in order to restart the flow of funds from the U.K.
The payments industry has made clear that in order to put such a process into place there would need to be greater clarity that foreign websites which allow children in the U.K. to view hardcore porn are acting in breach of U.K. law.
Representatives of the payments industry proposed that a licensing regime for foreign porn websites --- similar to that recently introduced for foreign gambling websites --- would be the best way of achieving such clarity.
Comment: ATVOD Idiocy 22nd December 2014. Thanks to Alan
Does the arrogance of these scumbags know no bounds? They are quite open about their wish to impose this age verification nonsense worldwide, and to do so specifically by targetting web sites which behave ethically by offering
free samples so that potential customers can assess whether or not they wish to purchase a membership. This is a disgrace. I hope that foreign jurisdictions will move robustly to disrupt ATVOD's idiotic control freakery. Once
again, we have the purported protection of children being used to treat everyone as a child. I can understand why opponents of this nonsense may wish to appear respectable by not directly confronting the notion that young people need to be
protected, but I wish that they would do so. I very much hope that young lads (and indeed lasses) in search of a bit of naughty material will be able to circumvent ATVOD and parental controls. How old were these clowns when they first encountered smut? I
was about fourteen. Are ATVOD staffers so congenitally thick that they only discovered porn at 40? Over at Ofcom, the new boss is getting a salary for her censorious activities well in excess of the prime minister's headline pay,
and maybe even better than Cameron's package including the rent of Number 10 and Chequers. The lunatics really do seem to be in charge of the asylum. |
|
Ofcom consults on its plan of work to introduce further internet censorship in the coming year
|
|
|
 | 20th December 2014
|
|
| See article from
media.ofcom.org.uk |
in 2014 Ofcom has played its part in a massive step up in internet censorship British adult websites. It has enthusiastically enforced the totally unviable age verification rules that have crucified British internet businesses involved in the adult video
trade. It has embraced discriminatory new rules banning depictions of women enjoying sex and it has declared war on kinksters who enjoy the likes of spanking and BDSM. Now it is consulting on an ominous new extension of internet censorship that the
government refer to as developing a common framework for media standards. Presumably this means that they are seeking to apply TV standards to the internet. In what surely must be a gigantic disconnect with the basics of the English
language, Ofcom ludicrously write that their repressive censorial nastiness is somehow beneficial. And Ofcom describe their work plan for the coming year in classic Orwellian doublespeak: Protecting and
promoting the interests of audiences and citizens in content services Protecting audiences from potentially harmful content remains a priority for Ofcom. Next year, Ofcom will continue to work with other groups to promote the
safety of audiences online. This includes working with the UK Council for Child Internet Safety to protect children and supporting the Government in developing a common framework for media standards.
Update:
More proactive monitoring 29th December 2014. Another worrying idea to extended censorship is: Ensure content complies with broadcasting rules by taking a new targeted approach to our enforcement
activities for TV broadcasters...Extending monitoring of TV content to detect content which raises issues of potential audience harm, particularly of channels about which we receive few or no complaints;
|
|
|
|
|
 | 19th December 2014
|
|
|
The terms in this specific porn ban are pretty ridiculous to say the least and outright sexist, so we made this Android game to show how we felt about that. See article from mikandi.com
|
|
Whilst David Cameron confirms that he is a miserable censorial prat
|
|
|
 | 16th
December 2014
|
|
| See article from
mirror.co.uk |
Nick Clegg has slammed new porn laws which outlaws British websites from hosting supposedly harmful bedroom acts between consenting adults Nick Clegg today warned prudish David Cameron to keep his nose out of people's exotic bedroom
habits. He said: The Government is not there to stick its nose in the bedroom, as long as people are not doing things which are illegal. It's not really for us to judge how people get their kicks.
Speaking at his monthly press conference, Clegg made clear the face sitting porn protestors have his support:
In a free society, people should be free to do things that many people might find exotic, at mildest, or deeply unappetising at worst. It's their freedom to do so.
But Cameron made clear last week
he backs the repressive and business destroying new laws. He told a conference in London: I feel that it's very important. In Britain we have rules about how you can buy pornography in the shop. I believe we should try
and make sure you apply those rules when you buy pornography online.
The PM said it was part of a broader principle that the same laws should apply online as on the high street. Of course it never occurred to him to achieve
this by freeing up the ridiculous prohibitions inflicted on high street stores. Cameron spouted further: We're trying to make sure that when something is a crime, it is prosecuted and convicted wherever it takes
place. My view is that should happen whether it's online or offline. We should try and apply the same rule whether you're visiting a shop in a high street or visiting a store on the internet.
|
|
Christians and Secularists join forces to point out the nastiness that will surely be enabled by Extremist Disruption Orders
|
|
|
 | 15th December 2014
|
|
| See article from
christian.org.uk |
Anyone who criticises same-sex marriage or Sharia law could be branded an extremist under proposed new powers, Christians and atheists have jointly warned. The fresh expression of concern comes from The Christian Institute and the National
Secular Society who have raised fears over planned Extremist Disruption Orders (EDOs), recently outlined by Home Secretary Theresa May. EDOs, which are designed to counter Islamic extremism, have been described as a threat to free speech and
reminiscent of Tony Blair's notorious religious hatred Bill. Opinion Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, cautioned that Christians who criticise gay marriage or even argue that all religions are not the same could find
themselves accused of extremism. He said: Anyone who expresses an opinion that isn't regarded as totally compliant with the Equality Act could find themselves ranked alongside Anjem Choudary, Islamic State or Boko
Haram.
Speaking to The Telegraph Online Keith Porteous Wood, Director of the National Secular Society, warned that secularists might be branded Islamophobic and racist because of their campaigns against the rise of
Sharia law. He said: A much better case needs to be made for introducing draconian measures such as Extremist Disruption Orders, which are almost unchallengeable and deprive individuals of their liberties.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
15th December 2014
|
|
|
There seems to be a tired, frustrating belief in British culture that sex is something that needs to be kept indoors and not talked about, especially if you're a politician or public figure. By Frances Black See
article from huffingtonpost.co.uk |
|
Lively and colourful protest outside parliament over government internet censorship decree
|
|
|
 |
12th December 2014
|
|
| See article from
theguardian.com See
pictures from the protest from
huffingtonpost.co.uk See
pictures from the protest from
independent.co.uk |
The Guardian reported: Sex workers and campaigners have gathered in front of parliament to protest against changes to UK pornography regulations. Protesters chanted: What do we want?
Face-sitting! When do we want it? Now! They say the list of banned activities includes face-sitting , and campaigners carried out a mass demonstration of this while singing the Monty Python song Sit On My Face. Organiser Charlotte Rose called the restrictions
ludicrous and said they were a threat to freedom of expression. These activities were added to this list without the public being made aware, Charlotte Rose said. They've done this without public knowledge and
without public consent. There are activities on that list that may be deemed sexist, but it's not just about sexism, it's about censorship. What the government is doing is taking our personal liberties away without our
permissions.
Mistress Absolute, a professional dominatrix and fetish promoter, said the law was restrictive: I felt that this was the beginning of something to creep into my sexual freedom and sexual preferences.
Neil Rushton said: They're very sexist laws. These are very geared towards women's enjoyment as opposed to men's.
Obscenity lawyer Myles Jackman, Jerry Barnett
from Sex and Censorship and Jane Fae from the Consenting Adult Action Network were among those making speeches at the protest. Fae called the changes heteronormative , and said: What is being clamped down on is
any kind of online content made by adults who are consenting.
I organised today's mass face-sitting outside Parliament because I'm not willing to give up my sexual liberties 12th December
2014. See article from
independent.co.uk by Charlotte Rose
Draconian new pornography restrictions are an attack on our freedom, so it's time to sit down and be counted I can hear the laughter now. A mass face-sitting outside Britain's parliament: are they serious? The answer, for anyone who dares think otherwise is: absolutely. Yes. For the new anti-porn regulations censor people without consent. Nobody has the right to take away peoples personal liberties or personal choice.
If we don't speak out now, more and more amendments are going to be added to existing laws taking our personal rights away.
...Read the full
article |
|
Early Day Motion calls for the annulment of the Government's internet censorship decree
|
|
|
 | 12th December 2014
|
|
| 7th December 2014 See article from
parliament.uk |
Early day motion 605 That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2916), dated 4 November 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6
November, be annulled. Primary sponsor: Julian Huppert Sponsors: John Leech and Mike Hancock Update: 2 more gallant liberals 12th December 2014. Andrew George (St. Ives) and David
Ward (Bradford East) are Lib Dems who have joined the role call of honour. Update: Julian Huppert gets a positive write up in the Daily Mail
12th December 2014. See article from
dailymail.co.uk The Daily Mail writes: Spanking and whipping should not be banned in British-made online porn videos, Lib Dem MPs have
demanded. Backbench MP Julian Huppert attacked rules revealed last week which ban a host of erotic acts considered harmful by ministers. The new laws aim to bring video-on-demand online porn into line with videos
sold in licensed sex shops. It means around 10 acts - ranging from spanking to strangulation, aggressive whipping and being tied up -- are now banned from web porn sold in the UK. Mr Huppert has tabled a Commons motion calling for
the new rules -- laid down in the Audiovisual Media Services Regulation 2014 -- to be annulled. He said: The new rules mean that all video-on-demand services that originate from the UK can't show various acts, such as
spanking. It seems to me to be very odd to say that this - assuming it is consensual - is acceptable for somebody to do in their own home, for them to photograph it, film it, but not to look at it online if it comes from the UK.
To me the case for banning things should be driven by issues around consent, and around genuine risk, not about whether we happen to like things or not.
|
|
Gathered comments on the new law introducing internet porn censorship in the UK
|
|
|
 | 9th December 2014
|
|
| | New powers to censor digital media are a threat to free expression
3rd December 2014.See article from backlash-uk.org.uk
British digital media producers are now subject to some of the most severe content restrictions in Europe. The regulations will shut down websites and criminalise producers of content that remains legal to produce throughout
the European Union. This will have a chilling effect on freedom of sexual expression in the UK. It also makes British media uncompetitive within the EU. This will lead to job cuts and lost revenue for the Treasury.
The government’s new porn laws are arbitrary and sexist
3rd December 2014. See article from newstatesman.com
by Lauren Razavi
In a hopeless government attempt to control what Britons get off on, new rules regulating the UK porn industry have come into force this week. The Audiovisual Media Services
Regulations 2014 imposes restrictions on the content of pornography made and sold within the UK -- and it does so with a perplexing ignorance about the realities of modern technology. British porn producers and consumers will now
be subject to some of the harshest restrictions anywhere in Europe, with speculation that this is only the beginning. Video-on-demand content produced or sold in the UK is no longer permitted to show a vague and arbitrary list of explicit acts.
BDSM's Section 28
2nd December 2014. See article from strangethingsarehappening.com by David Flint So what is the point of the new law, then? Are the government so naive as to think that forcing onerous new rules on the rapidly
dwindling number of British based porn sites will make any difference to teenagers accessing hardcore? It seems unlikely. But then, in reality, this was never really about preventing children from accessing adult material. Rather, this seems the first
step of a cunning plan. First of all, kill of the British industry by regulating it out of existence. Then, when there are rules in place about what is or isn't legal within the UK, it becomes easier to strangle access to foreign sites. ATVOD are already
pushing to stop card payments to foreign sites that don't follow their rules (i.e. all of them). The next step after that will be legally enforced blocks, similar to those imposed on file sharing sites.
Government cracks down on
Fifty Shades of Grey style sex acts in online porn videos because it's harmful
3rd December 2014.See article from
dailymail.co.uk The Daily Mail surprisingly hasn't supported the government censors. Its piece, borrowing heavily from a Guardian article, seemed to mock the arbitrary
moralistic R18 guidelines and gave space to the point that Women's Fifty Shades of Grey pleasures would take a knock by the new law. And the Daily Mail didn't even bother with any sound bites from the miserablists of Mediawatch-UK and the like. The piece
included the following comments: Jerry Barnett, founder of anti-censorship campaign Sex And Censorship, told Vice News: R18 is a strange thing. It's a set of weird and arbitrary censorship rules
decided between the BBFC, the police and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). There appear to be no rational explanations for most of the R18 rules - they're simply a set of moral judgments designed by people who have struggled endlessly to stop the
British people from watching pornography.
Erotic film director Erika Lust told the Independent: With this legislation, the UK is in danger of finding itself back in an age where
porn is simply the boring, unrealistic, male fantasy of bimbos eagerly pleasing men as if it is their duty, where women are submissive and lack ownership of their sexuality. Women in the industry will now fear the loss of their livelihoods as well as
their sexual independence.
Spanking and caning - just two of the sexual acts now banned in British porn films
2nd December 2014. See article from telegraph.co.uk Not a very convincing piece in the Telegraph but it did throw in the fact that the government know exactly how this will screw adult companies in Britain: In
its analysis of the new regulation, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognised that the new system might lead to some loss of British business. A report noted: Restricting access to R18 material may lead to
businesses moving outside of UK's jurisdiction in order to avoid regulation. Nevertheless, there is public value in ensuring that there is consistency for regulation across platforms so that UK based VOD firms are compliant with the UK's views on harmful
content.
DCMS also noted that small businesses might be particularly hard hit by the new rules: There are a number of small and medium sized firms among the UK-based suppliers of
R18 content which may be affected by this measure
View from America: United Kingdom Ramps Up War on Porn and Women's Sexuality
5th December 2014. See article from
business.avn.com At first glance, the news out of the United Kingdom appears like something The Onion might concoct to lampoon the nation's recent devolution
into what everyone thought was a bygone sexual morality. But no; like a nightmare from which one cannot awaken, the government quietly enacted new regulations that went into effect Dec. 1, 2014 banning certain sex acts from being produced and sold in the
U.K.
Even the Guardian's high priestesses of PC are unimpressed: I'm no fan of the porno-industrial complex but these new rules are unworkable
5th December 2014. See article from
theguardian.co by Suzanne Moore Increasingly, we see legislation made in some archaic vacuum where the internet does not exist. Furthermore, many of these
now-censored activities are to do with female pleasure and the activities of dominatrices. Why is it OK to show a male ejaculation but not a female one? What are the qualifications of those who cobble together these rules?
And the Guardian isn't impressed with the law from a science perspective
6th December 2014. See article from
theguardian.com by Dean Burnett One of the more controversial things banned is female ejaculation. Female ejaculation is a weirdly controversial subject but
science doesn't deny that it's a real thing. Many have cited the ban on female ejaculation as a clear demonstration of the sexist nature of the new rules (especially as it's fine to show male ejaculate, and even people eating it). But the BBFC,
responsible for enforcing these rules, say the ban is a reflection of the fact that pornographers claim they're showing female ejaculation when they are in fact showing urination. Showing urination in sex, water sports ,
has long been banned in British pornography. This appears to be a cultural consensus rather than a scientific one. Despite the myth that urine is sterile so good for cleaning wounds, this is not the case, so urinating on someone could lead to infection.
But then, this is true of any fluid produced by humans, many of which are expressed in pornography but not restricted in this manner.
And the Guardian isn't impressed with the law from a feminist perspective
6th December 2014. See article from
theguardian.com by Zoe Williams The conformity that it's imposing is to the worst model of porn. It specifically targets and bans acts that are
associated with feminist and fetish porn. Pandora Blake, over welsh rarebit and eggs, was explaining to me the new porn laws. They aren't new, exactly -- it's just a new way of regulating online pornographers, via ATVOD (the Authority for Television
and Video on Demand) so that they have to comply with the rules for pornography on DVD.
The UK's sexist new pornography restrictions aren't just an act of state censorship, but could be the first step towards
something even worse
7th December 2014. See
article from
independent.co.uk by Myles Jackman (Obscenity lawyer) It's not just the depiction of certain sex acts which is under attack --- our freedom is too
As you might have already heard, an act of state censorship has been declared against British pornography in the guise of innocuous regulation. But what you might not know is that it has also marked the first stage in a campaign to
impose global trade sanctions. Strangely, this proposition has received less coverage. The current discussion around these regulations has focused on the absurd restrictions which are being imposed on pornography. For example,
male ejaculation is acceptable to shoot; but its female equivalent is absolutely beyond the pale. Bang out of order. It might be urine. We're not sure. Probably best to ban it. However, ignoring the inherent sexism of this
proposition, it is actually the framework in which these regulations have been allowed to emerge that is of greatest concern to all forms of freedom of expression.
Online porn restrictions will lead to UK
exodus'
8th December 2014. See article from bbc.co.uk Legislation that censors online
porn on UK websites will massively disadvantage the UK industry, according to a leading adult broadcaster.Chris Ratcliff of Portland TV said the industry was already disadvantaged compared to overseas competitors. The result, he predicted,
would be an exodus of companies out of the UK : What it does is take out big swathes of material that, albeit on the fringes, are still very popular in this territory and globally.
The big
challenge we face operating in the regulated UK sector is the complete lack of parity between us and the unregulated offshore sector, said Ratcliff, whose company operates Fantasy TV and many of the babe channels. Improved age verification tools, he
added, are a more effective means of protecting minors from inappropriate material than the tightening-up of regulation in respect to content strength - a move he said was a mistake.
The regulation
of pornography on video-on-demand in the United Kingdom 9th December 2014. See article from
tandfonline.com by Julian Petley
This article demonstrates in detail how the British government, the Office of Communications and The Authority for Television on Demand have interpreted the requirement in the European Union's Audio Visual Media Services Directive that any material on
video-on-demand services which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors must be made available only in a way that ensures minors will not normally hear or see it. By EU standards, the approach adopted has been a strict
one, raising questions about whether the UK authorities have gone beyond the requirements of the Directive, and thus whether their policies need underpinning by new legislation at the national level. This in turn poses further questions about the
desirability of such legislation, its compatibility with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the advisability of driving abroad the providers of adult on-demand services, and the practicability of attempting to regulate
transnational media traffic in an increasingly online world where standards of acceptability vary widely from one country to another.
|
|
The Government chips in by killing an entire industry of small adult internet businesses (without even having the decency to ask parliament first)
|
|
|
 | 6th December 2014
|
|
| See article from
independent.co.uk |
The whiplash backlash: it's not as if we're hurting anyone (else) A new law will outlaw video-on-demand websites which showcase certain sexual practices. Jamie Merrill meets the practitioners with livelihoods on the
line From her secluded studio in Hampshire, Nikki has been running her online business for 15 years. A successful local businesswoman, until this week she would give work to up to 30 different models, actors and actresses.
Few of her neighbours will have known her speciality though; she produces pornographic videos of face sitting and female domination. Following a change in the law, Nikki, who is professionally known as Mistress
Whiplash, has had to close six of her video-on-demand websites after the new rules made her business model unprofitable. She used to charge visitors to her websites up to £30 to view her niche videos, which she
insists are consenting , legal and helping to reduce the stigma for people who have different kinks in society. Nikki, 30, is not alone. She is one of dozens of small British pornographers who have hit out
against a change in the law which means niche paid-for online pornography of unusual fetishes is now regulated in the same way as traditional DVDs bought in sex shops. ...Read the full
article
|
|
The BBFC and police impose some downright stupid porn censorship rules, but not quite as broad as the list being quoted in the press
|
|
|
 | 5th December
2014
|
|
| 4th December 2014. See article from
theguardian.com by Murray Perkins of the BBFC |
On 1 December, the Communications Act 2003 was amended. The regulation of R18 pornographic content available on-demand in the UK will henceforth be subject to the same standards as those applied to pornography on DVD by the British Board of Film
Classification, where I am a senior examiner. The amendment applies to those works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation, with the R18 category being a special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of
consenting sex, or strong fetish material involving adults. While some non-pornographic films may contain material which raises issues comparable with those which might be found in sex works, and which may also be subject to cuts
-- such as scenes of sexual violence -- there is no direct crossover between the standards for sex works and those applied to non-pornographic films. Underpinning the BBFC guidelines is a specific requirement for the Video
Recordings Act to have special regard to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers, or, through their behaviour, to society. This means that, before classifying a work, the BBFC may cut certain acts in pornographic works where imitation or the
influencing of attitudes is a particular concern. Breath restriction is one such example. It would be wrong to assume that the BBFC consequently cuts all sight of people sitting across other people's faces. But the BBFC will cut sight of clear and
deliberate restriction of a person's ability to breathe during sexual play. Breath restriction for the purposes of sexual enjoyment can result in death. Given such a clear and well-documented risk of harm, passing such breath play in a sex work would be
contrary to the BBFC's designated responsibility. The BBFC also intervenes where material risks prosecution under UK law. This includes prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Indeed, the BBFC's designation under the
Video Recordings Act requires that it does not pass any content in breach of UK law. We regularly consult both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police to understand and keep up to date with the types of content which are subject to
prosecution and conviction. Consequently, we may not classify any material which may be subject to prosecution. Among other activities, this includes any repeated focus on urination during sex and urination over any other person, including any act which
cannot be distinguished from urination on the basis of the onscreen evidence alone. It has recently been suggested that the introduction of the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations will lead to several acts now being banned from
UK on-demand services, including spanking and verbal abuse. Much of this information is inaccurate, some of it is wrong. In judging material which may or may not be allowed under BBFC Guidelines, it is often unhelpful to speak hypothetically and in
generalisations when specifics of context and potential harm in a given situation are among the considerations which really matter. The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations will ensure that UK on-demand content is consistent with legally available
pornography off-line, benefiting from the application of UK law and the expert legal and medical advice which informs BBFC decisions. Comment: 10 questions for the BBFC about R18 porn rules 5th December 2014. See article
from strangethingsarehappening.com by David Flint
That so many people are appalled by these rules seems to have rather shaken the BBFC. After all, they pride themselves on their feminist credentials, and consider many of the acts and images they forbid as acts of sexual violence, mostly against
women. To be told that they are being sexist and patriarchal by banning spanking movies must genuinely baffle them. ...Read the full article Comment: Carry on censor Who decides what is too shocking for us to
see? 5th December 2014. See article from
eyeforfilm.co.uk by Jane Fae
It has been suggested in the past that the BBFC simply ask the public on these topics [obscenity rules]. After all, if the test of obscenity is what a majority of people consider to be obscene, then this is one area where opinion polling could be
helpful. What is interesting about the culture at the BBFC is that when such suggestions have been made, the BBFC has reacted with superior amusement -- incredulity even. What do you mean? Actually ask the public what they think
on a matter where the public are the final arbiter.? What an extraordinary idea! ...Read the full
article
|
|
We call for a complete removal of this amendment, underhandedly rushed through parliament in only one month, which is inherently sexist, insulting and damaging to many British people
|
|
|
 | 5th December 2014
|
|
| 3rd December 2014. See petition from
change.org (1654 signatures when posted on 3rd December) |
Sexist, archaic and damaging. This amendment to the communications act (2003) was rushed through parliament to take away the rights British people have on the internet. Since 1/12/14, The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations
2014 requires that video-on-demand (VoD) online porn now adhere to the same guidelines laid out for DVD sex shop-type porn by the BBFC. This includes the likes of: Spanking, Caning, Penetration by any object associated with
violence , Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual), Watersports, Female ejaculation, Facesitting, Fisting. The regulations make NO distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts. They treat female ejaculation as a myth (and more unsafe/disgusting than male ejaculation).
This is one further attempt to censor the internet, as with David Cameron's plan to force ISPs to filter pornography. They will damage smaller, independent film makers and producers, where as huge
pornography companies will be left comparatively unscathed, causing a loss of british jobs as independent film makers are forced overseas. Uneccesary censorship, patriarchal behaviour is all too often the path our government
takes. We have 50 shades of grey out in the CINEMA in february, yet we're not allowed to watch a real equivalent made by British people. The government have no right to dictate what a responsible adult does for work, or what they look at on the internet.
We call for a complete removal of this amendment, underhandedly rushed through parliament in only ONE MONTH, which is inherently sexist, insulting and damaging to many British people. Sign the
petition Petition: Bound-by-law. Against sexually repressive legislation.
4th December 2014. See petition from
you.38degrees.org.uk (607 signatures on 4th December)
To: Sajid Javid MP - Minister for censorship culture Reverse the recent ban on a variety of sexual acts being depicted in UK content. They breach the freedoms and civil rights of consenting adults who participate in the
sexual acts as listed below, and have duly signed their legal agreement to such participation of their own free will. Why is this important? Recently the government and the BBFC banned a list of sexual
acts, which mainly appear to take aim at female pleasure, from appearing in UK pornography. The government are arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex. There are greater acts of violence in mainstream
movies, as indeed there are also acts of a sexual nature, and some of which are extreme. Are the government also intent on banning the multi-billion dollar Hollywood movie industry from showing such films to a British audience? I
certainly don't recall being consulted about this back-door sexual repression policy by my MP! Yet it affects me, as it does every other adult, here in the UK. We must NOT be denied the right to choose for ourselves with regard to
what do watch and what we do, and just because I happen to view a female ejaculate , for instance, what does it matter? They banned: Spanking Caning Aggressive whipping Penetration by any object associated with violence
Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual) Urolagnia (known as water sports ) Female ejaculation Strangulation Facesitting Fisting Sign the
petition Petition: Repeal new anti-porn legislation 5th December 2014.
See petition from submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk (874 signatures on 5th December)
Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 came into force on December 1st, restricting UK production of online pornography which depicts spanking, caning,
facesitting, female ejaculation, fisting, bondage, and other acts legal to perform between consenting adults. We want this legislation repealed. The list of banned activities is transparently sexist: depictions of irrumatio
(forceful fellatio) are explicitly permitted, but facesitting (even fully clothed) is banned. Similarly, male ejaculation on a partner is explicitly permitted, but female ejaculation on a partner is banned. In addition, these
restrictions will cripple small independent UK businesses producing niche pornographic content, while favouring large companies producing mainstream content. They will also benefit foreign companies producing content which is now illegal to produce in
the UK, but still legal for UK customers to purchase and view online. Sign the petition
|
|
A new government law to crucify British adult websites has come into force today
|
|
|
 | 1st
December 2014
|
|
| 16th November 2014. See The Audiovisual Media Sevices Regulations 2014 [pdf] from
legislation.gov.uk See also Explanatory Memorandum to the
Audiovisal Media Sevices Regulations 2014 (sic) [pdf] |
The European Audio Visual Media Services Directive provides a justification for censorship that was implemented in UK law in the Communications Act 2003: If an on-demand programme service contains material which might
seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen, the material must be made available in a manner which secures that such persons will not normally see or hear it.
Unfortunately
for the censorial government, there is no particular evidence that hardcore porn seriously impairs children. In fact all the kids are already watching porn and they don't seem to be ending up being seriously harmed, at least any more than
any other generation. So the legal underpinning for ATVOD's onerous suffocating age verification rules for British adult websites seems somewhat shaky and open to challenge. Therefore the government are changing the law so as to explicitly make
age verification a requirement without having to rely on mythical serious harm. The government has introduced the following statutory instrument which means that it will not be debated in parliament, just nodded through.
The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 These Regulations may be cited as the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014.
Amendment of section 368E of the 2003 Act (harmful material) . In section 368E(4) of the 2003 Act (harmful material), for subsection (2) substitute:
(2) An on-demand programme service must not contain any prohibited material. (3) Prohibited material means:
- (a) a video work which the video works authority has determined for the purposes of the 1984 Act not to be suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it, or
- (b)
material whose nature is such that it is reasonable to expect that, if the material were contained in a video work submitted to the video works authority for a classification certificate, the video works authority would determine for those purposes that
the video work was not suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.
(4) An on-demand programme service must not contain any specially restricted material unless the material is made available in a manner which secures that persons under the age of 18 will not normally see
or hear it. (5) Specially restricted material means:
- (a) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued a R18classification certificate,
- (b) material whose nature is such that it is reasonable to expect that, if the
material were contained in a video work submitted to the video works authority for a classification certificate, the video works authority would issue a R18classification certificate, or
- (c) other material that might
seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of 18.
(6) In determining whether any material falls within subsection (3)(b) or (5)(b), regard must be had to any guidelines issued by the video works authority as to its policy in relation to the issue of classification certificates.
(7) In this section:
- the 1984 Act means the Video Recordings Act 1984;
- classification certificate has the same meaning as in the 1984 Act (see section 7 of that Act);
-
R18 classification certificate means a classification certificate containing the statement mentioned in section 7(2)(c) of the 1984 Act that no video recording containing the video work is to be supplied other than in a
licensed sex shop;
- the video works authority [BBFC] means the person or persons designated under section 4(1)of the 1984 Act as the authority responsible for making arrangements in respect of video works other
than video games; video work has the same meaning as in the 1984 Act (see section 1(2) of that Act).
Amendment of section 368B of the 2003 Act (supply of information) Insert: (d) OFCOM may supply information to the video works
authority, within the meaning of section 368E, for use by the video works authority in connection with functions of OFCOM as the appropriate regulatory authority; (e) a designated body may supply information to the
video works authority, within the meaning of section 368E, for use by the video works authority in connection with functions of the designated body as the appropriate regulatory authority.
[This looks like a measure to stop the
BBFC effectively changing the law by changing its own guidelines. It looks like Ofcom and ATVOD will be able to step in should the BBFC change its rules].
BBFC R18 Guidelines For reference the current
BBFC Guidelines for R18 takes the form of a list of material prohibited from R18: The following is a list of prohibited material:
- material which is in breach of the criminal law, including material judged to be obscene under the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959
- material (including dialogue)
likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity which may include adults role-playing as non-adults
- the portrayal of sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent. Any form of physical
restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent
- the infliction of pain or acts which may cause lasting physical harm, whether real or (in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may
be made for moderate, non-abusive, consensual activity
- penetration by any object associated with violence or likely to cause physical harm
- sexual threats, humiliation or abuse
which do not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game.
- Strong physical or verbal abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable
These Guidelines will be applied to the same standard regardless of sexual orientation of the activity portrayed
CPS Obscenity Guidelines Of course the guidelines don't fully define what
is 'judged to be obscene under the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959', but the CPS does offer some guidance. See charging
practice from cps.gov.uk : It is impossible to define all types of activity which may be suitable for prosecution. The following is not an
exhaustive list but indicates the categories of material most commonly prosecuted:
- sexual act with an animal
- realistic portrayals of rape
- sadomasochistic material which goes beyond trifling and transient infliction of injury
- torture with instruments
- bondage (especially where gags are used with no apparent means of withdrawing consent)
- dismemberment or graphic mutilation
- activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine, urination or vomiting on to the body, or excretion or use of excreta)
- fisting
The Guidelines are still insufficient for VoD providers to judge the legality of their catalogue The most immediate issue with the new law is how commonplace 'rough sex' will be treated. There are many films that suffer a
few cuts for hair pulling, gagging, retching, spitting etc. Will a film that would be R18 after a few cuts now become illegal? If so, there are thousands of them. It is not clear how these cuts correlate to the guidelines. The guidelines are clearly
produced for interpretation by the BBFC rather than the public and will effectively leave VoD service providers unable to judge the legality of films without a BBFC certificate. Perhaps that is the idea. But then again it will leave British websites with
a tiny fraction of the range of choice to that of foreign competitors. Comment: Scrapping red tape
18th November 2014. From the Melon Farmers Coincidently I got a circular emall from David Cameron yesterday claiming: "we will carry on backing businesses by scrapping red tape, cutting
taxes - and continuing to invest in the infrastructure that is vital to create jobs and enable Britain to compete successfully in the global race".
Well if Cameron considers this new law as `backing businesses`
and `scrapping red tape` then Britain is doooomed. |
|
The Law Commission has started a review of the Offences against the Person Act. Jane Fae asks how will this impact consensual harm in a BDSM context?
|
|
|
 | 1st December 2014
|
|
| See article from
newstatesman.com by Jane Fae See Offences against the
Person review from lawcommission.justice.gov.uk |
The Law Commission writes about a review of Offences against the Person: Our scoping consultation on this project is now open until 11 February 2015. The Ministry of Justice has asked the Commission to carry out a scoping
exercise as a first step towards a potential project to reform the law on offences against the person
Jane Fae reports on some of the possibilities of such reforms on the BDSM community: Of course,
what they don't mention is the central role this Act has played in shaping the legal landscape in respect of BDSM. For it was under the OAPA that the landmark Spanner case was prosecuted in the 1990s: and despite contrary rulings, it is this verdict that
continues to dictate the limits to consensual sex. Incredible as it may seem to those who have grown up post-Spanner, there was a once-upon-a-time golden age when the prevailing assumption was that pain, inflicted consensually and
in pursuit of mutually satisfying erotic outcomes was permissible. That was not an unreasonable point of view. After all, you could -- you may still -- beat an opponent senseless in a boxing ring and, providing all is done in accordance with the rules,
and consensually, there is no problem. Why should a beating of a sexual nature be any different?
...Read the interesting
article |
|
Government introduces new law to extend detailed logs of internet usage to mobile phones and tablets
|
|
|
 | 23rd November 2014
|
|
| See article from
theguardian.com See
article from
theregister.co.uk See Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
from publications.parliament.uk See bill
progress from services.parliament.uk
|
Police are to get powers to force internet firms to hand over details linked to IP addresses in order to help them help snoop on people's internet use. The anti-terrorism and security bill will oblige internet service providers (ISPs) to retain
information linking IP (Internet Protocol) addresses to individual subscribers. The home secretary, Theresa May, said the measure would boost national security, but again complained that Liberal Democrats were blocking further steps.
Loss of the capabilities on which we have always relied is the great danger we face, May said. The bill provides the opportunity to resolve the very real problems that exist around IP resolution and is a step in the right
direction towards bridging the overall communications data capability gap.
However, the Lib Dems insisted that the communications data bill -- branded the snooper's charter -- was dead and buried . The party also
stressed that the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, had been calling for the IP measures since spring 2013. The technical details are either sparse or misleading, maybe deliberately. Home and mobile broadband users have obviously had their IP
address recorded and logged for sometime along with logs of messages and websites visited. I believe that the bill is targeted at internet access on mobile phones where an IP address is shared by many users simultaneously without retaining detailed user
records per IP message. The Register obtained a slightly getter explanation from the Home Office:
Every internet user is assigned an IP address to ensure communication service providers know which data should go to which customer and routes it accordingly. Addresses are sometimes assigned to a specific device, such as a broadband router located in a
home or company. But they are usually shared between multiple users and allocated randomly by the provider's automated systems. Many providers currently have no business reason for keeping a log of who has used each address. It is
therefore not always possible for law enforcement agencies accessing the data to identify who was using an IP address at any particular time. Such communications data is a vital tool in the investigation of terrorist and criminal
activity, and significantly contributes to the conviction of child sex offenders. The inability to link IP addresses to individuals poses serious challenges for law enforcement agencies. The proposed measures would reduce the risk
of terrorism by improving the ability of the police and other agencies to identify terror suspects who may be communicating with each other via the internet. It would also help to identify and prosecute organised criminals; cyber
bullies and computer hackers; and protect vulnerable people. For example, it can be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide. This legislation will not however address all the capability gaps
that the Draft Communications Data Bill aimed to fill. These gaps will continue to have a serious impact on law enforcement and intelligence agencies. For example, the provisions will not enable the retention of weblogs -- a record of information
relating to a communication between a user and the internet, including a record of websites that have been visited.
Update: Retaining MAC addresses 27th November 2014. See
article from
publicaffairs.linx.net The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill amends the definition of relevant communications data that Internet providers are required to
retain. The apparent intention is to ensure that Internet providers retain IP port numbers or machine MAC addresses when these are necessary to distinguish users, such as when the network is employing Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation (CGN).
|
|
The extension of the Dangerous Pictures Act to cover rape porn nears completion
|
|
|
 | 23rd
November 2014
|
|
| See bill progress from
services.parliament.uk See
draft law from publications.parliament.uk
|
The new clause extending the Dangerous Pictures Act to cover rape porn has passed through the House of Lords. The next step is the Ping Pong stage where the House of Commons debates House of Lords amendments which do not effect the Dangerous Pictures
clauses. This stage will occur on 1st December 2014. The existing Dangerous Pictures Act may be summarised: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images:
It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image. An extreme pornographic image is an image which meets all of the following three
definitions
- is pornographic , ie it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
-
is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
- it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following---
- (a) an act which threatens a person's life,
- (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
-
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
- (d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image
would think that any such person or animal was real.
The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will extend the list. The list of image types above, ie life threatening act, serious injury, necrophilia, or bestiality is extended by: 37
Possession of pornographic images of rape and assault by penetration (7A) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following--- (a) an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or
(b) an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else, and a reasonable person looking at the image
would think that 30the persons were real.
(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A)--- (a) penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal; (b)
vagina includes vulva.
The new clause will apply only in England and Wales. Scotland has its own version of the Dangerous Pictures Act that already includes rape porn. Northern Ireland seems to have been omitted, maybe it
will enact its own version later. |
|
David Cameron calls for more internet censorship of 'extremist' material. And no doubt the authorities will define 'extremist' as meaning more or less everything
|
|
|
 | 16th November 2014
|
|
| 15th November 2014. See article from
itproportal.com See article from
openrightsgroup.org |
David Cameron has called for governments around the world to do more to censor 'extremist' material online. He made his comments during a visit to Australia's Parliament. He said: The root cause of the challenge we face is
the extremist narrative. A new and pressing challenge is getting extremist material taken down from the Internet. There is a role for government in that. We must not allow the Internet to be an ungoverned space. But there is a role for companies too.
Cameron then went on to detail measures already being taken in the UK to combat online extremism, including adding supposedly extremists material to ISP blocking lists, improving reporting mechanisms and being more proactive in taking
down supposedly harmful material. The British government also recently revealed plans to reduce the amount of hate material online. However, a report released in May revealed that the proposal is experiencing a number of hurdles, including
opposition from ISPs and social networks, particularly those based outside the UK. Open Rights Group has responded to the announcement that ISPs will add extremist websites to filters designed to protect children from seeing adult content. Jim
Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group said: We need transparency whenever political content is blocked even when we are talking about websites that espouse extremist views. The government must be clear about
what sites they think should be blocked, why they are blocking them and whether there will be redress for site owners who believe that their website has been blocked incorrectly. Given the low uptake of filters, it is difficult to
see how effective the government's approach will be when it comes to preventing young people from seeing material they have deemed inappropriate. Anyone with an interest in extremist views can surely find ways of circumventing child friendly filters
Update: Censorship button 16th November 2014. See article from
bbc.co.uk The UK's major internet service providers (ISPs) are to introduce new measures to tackle online extremism, Downing Street has said. The ISPs had committed to
strengthening their filters and adding a public reporting button to flag terrorism-related material. In a briefing note, No 10 said the ISPs had subsequently committed to filtering out extremist and terrorist material, and hosting a button that
members of the public could use to report content. It would work in a similar fashion to the reporting button that allows the public to flag instances of child sexual exploitation on the internet. However, the BBC understands that while the ISPs
agreed in principle to do more to prevent extremism, they have not actually committed to the measures outlined by No 10. We have had productive dialogue with government about addressing the issue of extremist content online and we are working
through the technical details, a spokeswoman for BT said. A spokesman for Sky said: We're exploring ways in which we can help our customers report extremist content online, including hosting links on our website. The plan presents logistical
problems as extremist groups such as Isis typically use channels like YouTube or Twitter that are popular for entirely legal purposes. |
|
When will politicians ever do anything useful, like funding a convenient and free age verification system that businesses will then be keen to use?
|
|
|
| 31st October 2014
|
|
| 27th October 2014. See
article from
dailymail.co.uk |
Porn websites will be forced to check users are over 18 under a new crackdown to stop children accessing explicit material. Mobile phone companies and credit card firms will have to ensure that someone proves they are aged 18 or over before being
given access to adult websites. Now it has emerged that plans are being drawn up to force adult websites to carry out checks on the age of users. It would cover pornography sites, as well as those selling guns and other age-restricted material,
the Sunday Times reported. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working on the plans with Treasury minister Andrea Leadsom, who oversees regulation of the banking system. However, the new rules would only cover UK-based websites
to begin with. It is already nearly impossible to run a British adult website due to onerous age verification rules and critics have noted that only one of the 1,266 adult websites visited from the UK in December 2013 was a service that is regulated in
this country. It seems very unlikely that these new rules will have any impact on the availability of porn to children. Even if new downloads were stopped tomorrow there's probably already enough knocking around and hard drives and memory sticks to
last several lifetimes of playground swopsies. The only effect it will have is to add to the mountain of red tape, administrative costs and restrictive regulations that is impoverishing the west. Offsite Comment: Why age checks on porn sites will do more harm than good
28th October 2014. See article from telegraph.co.uk by Martin Daubney The Government's plan to introduce age verification checks only shows that politicians remain too scared to approach the porn problem in a
meaningful manner. ...Read the full article Update: Will the payment providers provide age verification? 31st October 2014. See
article from business.avn.com
That tidbit of information, along with other reports indicating that PayPal and Visa will be taking part in the new scheme in addition to other approved methods of verification, suggests that one way the government ostensibly means to gain
control of the internet is by pressuring processors to age-verify while simultaneously holding out the (dubious) promise of increased and officially sanctioned business.
|
|
|