Slashdot Mirror
UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on the row over proposals by the UK Government to criminalize possession of 'extreme' porn. The bill, published last week, would include the prohibition of fictional depictions of violence and images of acts between consenting adults. The law would also apply to screenshots taken from a legal film, if the screenshot was made for erotic purposes. The goal is to prevent disturbed individuals from accessing content online that would trigger violent behavior. From the article: 'Labour MP Martin Salter, who has worked closely ... in pushing the legislation, rejected the BDSM community's claims their civil liberties were being undermined. He said: "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet. At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."' The bill follows from plans initially announced last August."
More information about this law is available on Backlash's homepage, a group opposing the law.
According to the bill, it would count if it was produced for the purposes of sexual arousal. It's not clear how that's actually decided, but presumably a TV programme wouldn't count (as you say, we have this logic that TV is always okay, but on the Internet it must be evil pr0n).
Also, even if it did come under the law, it would be exempt if it's a classified work (i.e., the British Board of Film Censors, er, Classification says we are allowed to watch it).
However, the really bizarre bit is that if a UK citizen makes screenshots of this legal TV programme, for the purpose of sexual arousal - even privately and doesn't distribute them - it would be illegal. Three years in prison, and slapped on the Sex Offender Register.
The BBC can no longer cover the actions of Parliament or the PM?
Heh. You know, it's becoming less and less surprising that one of the UK's biggest objections to the EU charter has been the idea of signing up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It's probably things like this and their anti-terror laws that they don't want to give up.
No wonder British SF is so obsessed with the idea of their country becoming a fascist state.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Interesting you should bring that up, as in 1994 a conservative MP died from auto-erotic asphyxiation, combined with self-bondage and cross-dressing.
Talking of rights, it's interesting to note that the bill states "these clauses constitute an interference" with the European Convention on Human Rights.
/ cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 ):
But it's interesting, shall we say, to see what justifications it gives for doing so ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607
802. The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
803. The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people. It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place. The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.
804. In the case of images of staged activity , the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities. This is also the case with images of bestiality, which while involving harm to animals can also involve the non-consensual participation of humans who are harmed in the process of making the images.
805. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it. Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.
806. The Government considers that the restrictions on this material also achieve the aim of protecting others, particularly children and vulnerable adults, from inadvertently coming into possession of this material, which is widespread on the internet.
You don't "follow British politics closely enough" but you know enough to make a sweeping statement like "The UK is quite quickly becoming the creepiest democratic country in the world"?
Why? Because of a small part of one bill that has yet to even be debated in Parliament yet alone be voted on? Did you even RTFA and notice that before jerking your knee? You live in the US, where indefinite detention without trial is how you do things and yet you're lecturing the rest of the world on democracy?
As for the stupid assertion that this is based not upon "security concerns" but "out of boredom", well, if you RTFA then you would see that this change in the law is proposed on the back of a rather violent murder case where the murderer admitted to being addicted to violent rape websites, etc.
Sounds whimsical to you, does it? Really? If it was someone related to a Virgina Tech campus massacre victim campaigning for gun control would you accuse them of raising the issue "out of boredom"?
Personally, I couldn't be more opposed to this proposed legislation. As others have pointed out, it's an overreaction to a tragic but rare occurance. Emotive laws aren't often good ones - there's a reason why we don't let victims don't get to pick the sentences of those that have done them wrong.
As much as I can sympathise with the victim's family and friends, I find it hard to support their need for some sort of "Jane's Law" as part of their grieving process. Families of drink driving victims don't get alcohol bans being proposed on their behalf and I fail to see how this is any different.
Debate it? Yes. Look at measures that would be practical but not restrictive?. Yes. Legislate against something because of a single, deranged individual? No. Move on, and move on in a different, more positive manner.
But, hey, thanks for writing off our parliamentary democracy just for, you know, actually being prepared to talk about stuff. Instead of just brushing it under the carpet and then getting back to the important stuff like Paris Hilton's jail term and Britney's divorce case.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg