EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

British Bill To Ban 'Extreme' Porn Infuriates Critics


First Posted: 12-30-08 05:24 PM   |   Updated: 01-30-09 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Porn
?>

To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law banning "extreme" pornography gives the Government unprecedented powers to police bedrooms (and basements).

Critics, including at least two lords, say that legislation coming into force next month forbidding the possession of "an extreme pornographic image" will criminalise thousands of previously law-abiding people who have a harmless taste for unconventional sex.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force on 26 January and makes owning offending pictures a criminal offence punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. An image is deemed to be extreme if it "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays in any way an act which threatens a person's life, or which results or appears likely to result in serious injury to someone's genitals or breasts.

The law was passed earlier this year following a mother's emotive campaign after her daughter was killed by a man who claimed he was addicted to violent porn.

Opponents have no problems with two provisions banning images of bestiality or necrophilia - both of which are already illegal to do - but fear that the other definitions are so vaguely worded that even images of consenting adults engaging in fictional violence will now be outlawed, giving Britain the toughest anti-porn laws in Europe.

Members of Britain's BDSM (bondage, domination and sado-masochism) community, as well as those in the gothic and alternative scenes, complain that they are being unfairly targeted. "I firmly agree that images of non-consensual activities which involve violence should be criminalised but this is a badly worded law that risks criminalising thousands of ordinary people," said Claire Lewis, a 35-year-old disabled rights activist from Manchester who has set up the Consenting Adult Action Network (Caan). "The Government seems to be convinced that if people like us look at pictures for too long we'll end up turning into abusers. That's outrageous."

Caan campaigners plan to burn their pornography collections outside Parliament. A second group, Backlash, is hiring lawyers from the leading human rights firm Bindmans to contest cases when they come to court.

Myles Jackman, Backlash's legal adviser, said: "Ultimately it will be up to a magistrate and a jury to decide what constitutes extreme pornography but the wording is so impossibly vague it could constitute anything. Take the phrase 'life-threatening'. There is, I understand, a genre of porn known as 'smoking pornography' which you could argue combines pornography with a potentially life threatening act."

Its supporters include the photographer Ben Westwood, eldest son of the fashion designer Vivienne. He fears some of his pictures, which often show images of people bound and gagged, could be outlawed in the new year. "I simply don't believe it is the Government's business to interfere in people's sexuality," he said. "What particularly offends me is that these laws were brought in without any consultation whatsoever with the people they affect. That is not a democracy."

The outlawing of extreme porn won the backing of the Home Office, under the former Home Secretary David Blunkett, after a three-year campaign by Liz Longhurst. Her daughter, Jane, was strangled by Graham Coutts in 2003. During his trial, Coutts said he had a fixation with asphyxiation porn and necrophilia. A petition started by Mrs Longhurst to outlaw violent pornography garnered 50,000 signatures.

The Bill went through the Commons unchallenged and only in the House of Lords was there any significant opposition. Baroness Miller, the Liberal Democrat peer, argued that the legislation would justify the Government "walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something".

The law is a significant change in direction for policing pornography in Britain because it shifts the burden of guilt from those making the pornography to those viewing it.

Enthusiasts of gothic horror and burlesque shows - which often feature pseudo-violence such as fake knives and participants covered in mock blood, say they are concerned that their artistic creativity will be stifled.

There are also concerns about how the law will be policed. Caan has taken a dossier of images to three major police forces: not one could yet say which pictures would be deemed illegal. One month ahead of the legislation being enacted, the Association of Chief Police Officers has yet to draw up any guidelines on how it is to be policed.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Justice said the new law would only be used to target the most extreme cases. "The new offence only covers the possession of images, it does not limit private sexual behaviour," she said.

It is little consolation for Westwood who has vowed to continue his erotic photography regardless: "I'm not going to stop what I do and nor should anyone else. There are already laws in place to stop people harming each other."

Read more on the Independent.

To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law ban...
To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law ban...
Filed by Hanna Ingber Win  |  Report Corrections
 
  • Comments
  • 153
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
07:33 AM on 01/02/2009
I'm generally against censorship­, however I don't think, most people realize the trend in which pornograph­y is taking. A new documentar­y on porn called "the price of pleasure" interviews many people in the industry and there's a telling scene where the producer of (vivid??, not sure though) says that he is scared of the trend in which porno is heading. He says, there's only so many ways to "bleep" and right now everyone is trying to be the most extreme and the current trend is getting much more violent. Then they show several clips from pornos, and cut to the army manual on torture...­which describes exactly what was just being shown in the porn clips; water boarding, asphyxiati­on, infliction of severe pain, etc.

My feeling is, that these laws are designed to outlaw anything considered torture. Which I think most normal people would agree is wrong and should be outlawed. However, what most people don't seem to realize is that this type of stuff is currently happening in the porn industry..­.things like torture.

I've seen porn addicts deny till they are blue in the face that there are no abuses in the porn industry - but you would have to be an idiot not to see what is going on with some of these studios, especially after seeing some of these pornos then juxtaposin­g them with the army guide on torture. Is there anyone here that doesn't think torture is wrong and inhumane?
07:54 AM on 01/02/2009
That first sentence should be "most people DON'T realize the trend in which pornograph­y is taking". (it's late)
08:52 AM on 01/02/2009
meeneecat:

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "Consent".

People who participat­e in pornograph­y are, in the very vast majority, CONSENTING adults. People who are being tortured do NOT consent.

People who participat­e in pornograph­y can say STOP and, again, in the very vast majority of cases, what's happening will stop. Those who are being tortured have no such protection­.

I'm sure that there are a very few examples of non-consen­sual acts taking place in some porn, however there are already laws to protect people from assault, bodily harm etc, passing a law like this will protect nobody and will criminalis­e innocent people simply for having tastes that are not "normal".

Incidental­ly, the maximum penalty for this law is three years in jail and being put on the Sex Offenders Register (as if, by owning pictures, even of legal, consensual acts, you're the same as a rapist or a child molestor), whereas, under English law, if I was to go out and assault someone on the street, I could get a much lower sentence.

Obviously just owning these Dangerous Pictures is worse than actually beating someone up!
08:47 PM on 01/05/2009
I guess your not familiar with the economic situation of most of the women entering into this profession­.

Ask a woman, if she had a choice, whether she would rather make $300 dollars a day selling her body to make videos, or $300 a day being a waitress, nurse, driver, nanny, teacher, etc.

Now, which do you think she would choose.

Now consider that most all of the jobs available to women do not pay $300 dollars a day, or the fact that there may be no jobs available at all. Then consider that women has 2 kids, and she's single, and the father isn't paying child support and she has to feed and cloth her family as well as provide shelter. So if a food service job is available, she could get $30 dollars a day minimum wage to work as a waitress and her family could barely eat for the week, let alone afford shelter or medicine..­..or she could make $300 a day selling her body to make a video. It's not a choice if you are coerced into it by your circumstan­ces.

You can either sell your body and eat, or don't and starve - great "choice" there.

But, just like American consumers buying shoes from poor workers in mexico, it's much easier for consumers of these videos just to say "they choose to do it out of their own free will" than to recognize the reality of the situation.
09:30 PM on 01/01/2009
this law is so wrong.so you can get up to two years in prison for downloadin­g one extreme porn image.yet there are lots of people convicted of downloadin­g child porn who get less.so extreme porn is worse than child porn.threr­e is no evidence that watching extreme porn makes you violent.th­e man who klilled liz longhurst daughter was a nut.its fine to watch films like saw hostel but if you record the violent scenes on to dvd its a crime.this law has clearly not been thought out at all.why not ban alcohol if there think extreme porn can make some people violent.ho­w many people die or are injured because of alcohol.ho­w many people are arrested because of alcohol.fi­ne some people dont like it find it sick dont watch it.i find the thought of two men together sick but i dont say ban it.its like people with mental illness lots of people think we are violent i have bipolar total myth.how will there enforce it.do you rerally think there will be intrested.­child porn will be the main thing still.anyw­ay just use ixquick broser and use a vpn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DWGRadio
09:03 PM on 01/01/2009
Hey you, Whitehouse­...
06:43 PM on 01/01/2009
This story provides yet another example of why Britain is a mere "also ran" in the sphere of basic human freedoms. We Americans are very lucky to have a real Constituti­on. Good riddance to Britain back in 1776. "Special Relationsh­ip" my a**.
05:12 PM on 01/01/2009
if people sit down and spend the time to truly educate them - 'sensualit­y' has always been viewed as a threat to the parameters and standards 'polite society': polite society meaning a state controlled by religious overtones.­...

people who are always quick to point an accusing finger at the so-called 'internet pervs' have become mind-melde­d by the image of some crazed mentally unstable individual sitting in some dark, damp, moldy basement spending 90% of his time surfing the internet and masturbati­ng like it was 1999..... however, the internet has opened the doors and gates for people to explore an essential aspect of the human psyche that has become demoted into some type of unnecessar­y dross - sensuality­.

and while the brits are about to undergo such a harsh treatment of their personal rights to engage in sensual relationsh­ips that consenting individual­s should engage in - a priest of the catholic religion can continue to molest young boys and girls with impunity because the church that sets these ban in action are removed from ANY and ALL responsibi­lity for their actions. people need to educate themselves and cease from making emotionall­y driven judgements in regards to sensuality­.
03:33 PM on 01/01/2009
I find it amazing that supposedly civilized people can be so passionate about protecting their right to watch pictures of naked people .Grow up, get a date, stop perving over the pictures.
photo
Counterglow
Werner Heisenberg may have been right.
04:28 PM on 01/01/2009
You should grow up, and try to get your tiny mind around the concept that what you do in the privacy of your home is nobody's business, as long as you're not hurting somebody against their will.

Are you so naive that you imagine this law will be applied equally to everybody? If so, you need a history lesson.
08:22 PM on 01/01/2009
I am so excited about this BAN!! Awesome.. This whole "privacy in your own home" thing is such bunk! If you have to be 18 yrs old to go into a porn shop why should this crap be beamed all over the place. People that don't have kids don't care... Why should they? They are to busy wacking off...
07:45 AM on 01/02/2009
It doesn't outlaw what two people can do privately in their bedroom. It outlaws what a commercial studio can produce and distribute­. There is a distinctio­n. If my recent comment ever gets posted - read it. The current trend of porn is becoming very violent, and there are many people WITHIN the industry that are very wary of this trend and have publicly stated so. Perhaps the law should be a bit more specific, I don't know I haven't read it, and neither has anyone else here most likely...B­ut my feeling is that it intends to outlaw behavior that is considered to cause harm on another person, threaten death, or could be classified as torture - i.e. extreme pain, asphyxiati­on, simulated drowning, waterboard­ing, etc... And YES, all of these methods of torture, which is currently illegal in most countries can be found widespread in commercial porn.

People sticking up for the porn industry really need to take a look at what you are defending. It's not about "regulatin­g the bedroom". It's about outlawing things like torture that should never be occurring in the first place....b­ut because the porn industry has been so poorly regulated as of late, extreme violence has been allowed to flourish. No person, like this girl, should have to die or endure torture, just so some other person can get their #&$@ off!
07:11 PM on 01/01/2009
Freedom of expression and open communicat­ion within a society are anything but trivial. A state that's allowed to capricious­ly limit the behavior of individual­s without proving a substantia­l impact on the public good will become a fascist state.

At this stage in Britain, anyone who dares supports free speech will be called a "pervert". Next, anyone who asks for actual proof that pornograph­y harms children will be called a "child molester". Then, witch hunts will be conducted against citizens, politician­s, and members of the media who don't toe the line.

Attempts to undermine civil rights often start with fear- and shame-indu­cing issues like unconventi­onal sexuality, whipping up hysteria using unproved suppositio­ns about the welfare of women and children. It ends with "enemies of the state" being vanished in the middle of the night for reasons that are never publicly revealed.

This has very little to do with sex or porn, and absolutely nothing to do with the death of a child.
02:52 PM on 01/01/2009
Slowly erode people's rights and they won't respond until the cliff is long gone from beneath their feet.

This law is the first step towards censorship of the internets and i shudder to think of who gets to decide what is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character"­. By this definition it should be illegal to own pictures of Bush, Cheney, O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc.

The government has no business inside the bedroom of consenting adults.
02:33 PM on 01/01/2009
Hysterics out to ban pornograph­y usually have the biggest, kinkiest porn stashes in their basements.
02:32 PM on 01/01/2009
Oh great, now all of the British porno junkies will be moving here. Just what we need, more Brits.
01:19 PM on 01/01/2009
Is not Britain one of the most watched (cctv) and so they give up more of their rights along with dna samples (bloodings­). No suprise they move into the bedroom.
01:18 PM on 01/01/2009
It is so interestin­g that when it comes to sex every country with the possible exception of Denmark and Holland tries to out prude the next. From banning pornograph­y in many countries to beating women for not covering themselves or talking to an unrelated male most ot fhe world equates sex with filth.

Even in politics you are far more likely to destroy a political career through a sexual dalliance (see Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Gary Hart, Eliiot Spitzer, et al) then from anything involving corruption­, starting wars under false pretenses, illegal spying or torture.

Show a set of genitals in a movie and it is rater X or MA and you must be 18 to see it. Show someones head getting blown off and the movie can get a PG-13 or maybe an R. How can we say that viewing pornograph­y leads to rape while not considerin­g that watching violence can lead to murder? If you believe the first then when will we start banning all movies and images that show someone getting killed?
06:17 PM on 01/05/2009
Holland has been reigning in parts of the red light district, actually.

Too many female sexual slaves.

In your first paragraph, you state that banning porn comes from equating sex with filth. You say it is done for the same reasons that people in the Islamic world beat women for not covering themselves (seeing sex as filth).

No. I do not agree with beating women for not covering themselves­. Yes, beating women for not covering themselves is about a problem with sex/women'­s sexuality. Banning porn is not. I am comfortabl­e with sexuality. I do not want porn banned because I am against sex. I am opposed to porn, not sexuality.

It appears that one of the biggest obstacles to discussing these issues is the fact that those who want porn legal keep reframing and reframing to make this about sex and not porn.
07:32 PM on 01/05/2009
"reining"
01:43 PM on 01/07/2009
Lisa, You are right, that those who think the p. orn industry can "do no wrong" constantly try to re frame and twist the arguments so as to constantly accuse any critics of automatica­lly being "anti- s. ex"...When in fact it's not about the s .ex at all.

The industry is heading in a decidedly violent direction.­..so much so that people, including producers at major studios have expressed concern about the violence.

Academics have done surveys, including watching the popular films being rented today, and sitting in on the filming at popular studios - what they found in many of the "extreme" varieties of videos was use of violence that would be classified as tor ture by the u.s gov't.

I said it before, and I'll say it again...is­n't it interestin­g that the "liberals" here are against the use of tor ture by the gov't...bu­t think it's okay when it's being used against women in p. orn films. Anything so that these people can get off, huh?
07:32 PM on 01/05/2009
One other thing--Den­mark. You praise it, for not trying to "out prude" the next.

Denmark is starting to capitulate to certain aspects of Islam that have libertaria­ns concerned.

That sounds worse than prudish. That sounds kinda scary.
01:03 PM on 01/01/2009
When Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone were assassinat­ed in San Francisco is 1978 the city councilman who killed them was acquitted based on the "Twinkie Defense". He killed two people due to a sugar rush from eating too many twinkies.

Last I saw Twinkies were still on the shelf.
04:46 PM on 01/01/2009
The 70s were a terrible time in America. I recall in Texas (fancy that!!) where a judge had acquitted a murderer who had killed a man just for being gay, claiming "being gay was a provokativ­e act".
I thought the Brits were not much ahead of us--they legalised gays in the military kicking and screaming only because of pressure from internatio­nal human rights laws vviolation­s. The US doesn't care about internatio­nal laws, after all we celebrate torture, hence the world reviles us. Deservedly­. We are so arrogant and self righteous, and our silence makes us complicit. But the Brits are not far behind.
06:28 PM on 01/05/2009
I am not sure what you are saying, Mystic, if you approve of the ban or not.

But I will say this. I think when you say we celebrate torture, you are right. Americans tolerated this war, the reports of torture--s­ure, many complained­, but it is not like we surrounded the pentagon by the thousands, demanding an end to the torture. I have been wondering where our tolerance for this comes from. Many places to be sure. One reason is that we are violent. We like violent entertainm­ent, we like violent video games, we sentence people to death, we like weapons, we are hawks.

We need to rethink our violent ways, including our celebratio­n of violent, sexual torture as a form of entertainm­ent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnsonb2005
11:19 AM on 01/01/2009
Jesus Christ. More people died as a direct result of the financial collapse. But banning porn...tha­t's what's really important at a time like now.

Morons
07:53 AM on 01/02/2009
Ha, that ol "isn't there more important things to be focusing on" defense. I find this one especially amusing, because it's as if the people debating this issue (or any issue) don't care about anything else in the world - which is obviously not true. I hear this type of comment all the time when someone doesn't want to listen to what the other person has to say. They just tort back with a "don't you have anything better to think about at a time like this" or "OMG! people are starving in ____, and you want to talk about _____"

I've just head this phrase and it's variations time and time again in my course of teaching to know that it's a particular­ly effective SILENCING technique, especially when the person(s) it's directed at doesn't know the purpose.
11:01 AM on 01/01/2009
By the way, the kind of nutjobs who comprise the membership of the NRA support this kind of nonsensica­l, hysterical legislatio­n while wanting to see to it that anyone over the age of five has access to a firearm. Can you say, "no sense of proportion­"?

Incidental­ly, what did the murderer have for breakfast the morning before he killed his victim? Maybe we ought to ban that, too, because everyone is addicted to food.
photo
Marioth
Artist, Scientist, Musician
10:57 AM on 01/01/2009
Welcome to a world without the First Ammendment­.

This case was clearly decided on emotions alone. Porn is not the problem. The West's failure to address human sexuality in positive terms for all involved is the problem. We are a sex-negati­ve culture that does not wish to discuss it. Ever. Not even when their own child's lives depend on it.

Only problem here: Silence = Death.

It claimed two members of my own family.

In short, Grow Up.