All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
06 Jul 2007
The UK government is facing calls to drop its proposed ban on pornography featuring bondage and sadomasochism (BDSM).
New proposals contained in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill would make it a crime to view any image classed as "extreme".
This would include "an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals".
The new proposals were inspired by the murder of special needs teacher Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts, who was a regular viewer of such images.
Longhurst's former partner, Malcolm Sentence, told the BBC at the time of the murder that Longhurst "would still be here if it wasn't for the internet ".
Following Coutts's conviction, Longhurst's mother organised a petition to ban such images. It was signed by 50,000 people.
But pressure group Backlash, which includes the Libertarian Alliance, the Spanner Trust, the Sexual Freedom Coalition, Feminists Against Censorship, Ofwatch and Unfettered, has condemned the legislation and called for its withdrawal.
"Much has been made of the 50,000 who signed the petition organised by [Labour MP] Martin Salter and the Jane Longhurst Trust," said the group in a statement.
"But the wording of the petition invites signatories to oppose 'extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification'.
"Anyone would object to material 'promoting' violence against women, but the scope of the legislation is much wider than this. It criminalises material featuring consenting adults engaging in staged or controlled fantasies."
Backlash warned that the proposed legislation would hit BDSM groups, Goths and many horror or thriller films that "convey a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm".
"No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they are strongly advised not to put it on the internet," said Salter, who has been involved in writing the legislation. "It is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."
But this assertion has been disputed by scientists, who claim that it is just another example of a moral panic.
"The current fears around the possible impact of 'violent pornography' on the internet seem very similar to previous 'moral panics' from penny dreadfuls in Victorian times, to horror comics in the 1950s, to video nasties in the 1980s," said Dr Megan Barker, senior lecturer in psychology at London's South Bank University.
"Time and time again research has challenged the simple cause-effect relationship between exposure to such media and violent behaviour.
"But it is an easy scapegoat in a society which does not want to look at the more complex and insidious reasons for crime and violence, for example issues around poverty, class and the kinds of gender roles that are valued."
Latest stories from Public Sector
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
A leading global provider of critical information to...
Playstations and table football in the kitchen? Standard...
Systems Engineer - 2nd/3rd Line Support - Microsoft OS...
A leading global provider of critical information to...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
To cormelius 2
"I simply pointed out that sadists, using an orchestrated campaign, claimed a "backlash" with a massive 1,800 petition using scare stories and threats to everyone?s freedom. Compare this to the trifling 50,000 petition raised by the Longhust trust, which has no where near the resources that sadism has been able to orchestrate." You are joking, right? The fighting funds of the Backlash campaign number in terms of 100s of pounds. The JLT petition has been propped-up by the support of several MPs, with their own agendas, and the hysterical tabloid media; to say nothing of all the financial backing of IT firms with vested interests in the degeneration of the internet into something resembling the Disney Channel. Not only is it one of the best projected media-scares in history, it is one of the most mis-informed and ignorant.
Posted by: Edward Smith 27 Jul 2007
To cornelius
Here it is; section #65 of the bill- (quote) ------------------------- 65 Exclusion of classified films etc. (1) Section 64 does not apply to excluded images. (2) An ?excluded image? is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. (3) But such an image is not an ?excluded image? if? (a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and (b) it appears that the image was extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. (unquote) -------------------------- It's there in black and white; clips from classified films can still be proscribed. This is a disgraceful, illiberal thought crime. As to doing number counts on petitions etc; it has taken real bottle for some of these 1800 people (and others) to stand up and be counted for their beliefs and lifestyles on this issue. Contrast that with opportunist politicians like Salter, who come out with all this emotive diatribe about "snuff-movies" and so on, which even the most cursory amount of research will reveal to be a load of nonsense. Why don't these politicians preface all these campaigns by admitting to the public that we already have some of the toughest obscenity laws in the non-totalitarian world. The kind of material we are discussing is LEGAL to create and distribute in the USA and most of Europe. There is no proof of harm, no proven victims and no evidence that there is anyone whose rights are being protected by this. Which of the "eloquent" arguments from the pro-law camp have transcended these basic democratic principles?
Posted by: Edward Smith 26 Jul 2007
Edaward Smith
Where in the proposed bill does it say the cutting scenes from BBFC rated films could result in prosecution? You know what, look through it and you won?t find anything remotely like that in the bill. Its repeating crap like this, which loses the argument for you. This doesn?t stop sadists from producing scare stories though, because in their desperation, orchestrating a campaign of letter writing to influencing the media, they realise that some of the stuff they get off on will soon lead to their prosecution if they film and distribute it. In my opinion and in the opinion of 50,000 people who signed the petition for such a bill that is no bad thing. It might just stop another Jane Longhurst being murdered because of their warped lust for torture. I don?t claim that I know what public opinion is, I simply pointed out that sadists, using an orchestrated campaign, claimed a ?backlash? with a massive 1,800 petition using scare stories and threats to everyone?s freedom. Compare this to the trifling 50,000 petition raised by the Longhust trust, which has no where near the resources that sadism has been able to orchestrate. They simply put forward a cogent and powerful argument that many agree with. I believe the numbers speak for themselves
Posted by: Corneilius 26 Jul 2007
This argument is won, not lost!
To Cornelius; the Backlash campaign is not merely a "sadists" campaign, but is supported by a wide coalition of groups and (if you read the balance of readers' letter in the press and web fora) public opinion. Nor have they "lost the argument", as you so patronisingly say. Where there is no victim, there should be no crime; it's quite simple. This new law is crap...the way one edits and stores clips from violent BBFC-rated films could become an offence under this legislation in it's current form. This is outrageous in a free society.
Posted by: Edward Smith 25 Jul 2007
More foolish overreaction.
It is very clear that there is no proven connection between viewing and doing, whether with porn, violent porn or any other genre. This law is based on the assumption that viewing such material will cause the viewer to commit crimes. Though often said in jest, it is a reasonable question to ask; if viewing leads to doing, then why don't all censors end up as violent sexual offenders? Are they 'magically' immune to something that affects everyone else? If viewing leads to doing then with the explosion of access to the internet (and therefore vastly greater access to more and extreme porn), why has there not been an explosion in sex crimes? I could care less what people look at, as long as it does not harm others, and we have yet to see evidence that A/ that harm is caused and B/ that this law wil address that, assumed, problem in any way. Since this law will infringe human rights (articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR), then we must demand strong evidence of a need for those infringements. If the law is passed without such evidence, we leave ourselves open to our rights being infringe merely at a minister whim.
Posted by: Gareth Roberts 10 Jul 2007
Stiff Opposition?
I know that sadists are up in arms about the proposed legislation, but to say that opposition is ?stiff? is pushing the boundaries of credulity a little, unless you are using an obvious pun. The Jane Longhurst trust, which comprises mainly her close family and friends, have had no difficulty in raising 50,000 signatures for its petition to make the owning or downloading of violent sexual images illegal, yet the menagerie of opposition groups from backlash to the spanner trust have barley raised 1,800 despite a campaign that has been warning of dire consequences for even the most benign internet user. This law is designed to target those who download images that show torture and abuse for pleasure. People who download such images know exactly what it is they are doing, and to try to incriminate other groupings by smearing the proposed law smacks of desperation by those who realise they have lost the argument. Lets hope the sadist?s fail in their smear tactics, and that the media report the view expressed by many that this law is a much needed tool to use against the malignant influence brandished by those who enjoy sexual violence.
Posted by: Corneilius 09 Jul 2007
No Censorship!
Hey there Mr. Horne (the fella in the comment posted above): you're quite deluded if you imagine there's something out there called the "moral majority", of which you fancy yourself a part. Neither fetishes nor websites are to blame for what unhinged people do; people are solely repsonsible for their actions, and if some unbalanced person doesn't find their "trigger" on the internet, they'll find it somewhere else--history bears this out. Your self-righteousness doesn't help the issue, but confounds it further. As in real life, we do not require our personal desires and dreams to be censored or assessed by some almighty authority; we can do that quite well ourselves, though I'll admit the internet is by no means perfect in its current state. Some filtering is necessary, but this appraoch simply will not do.
Posted by: ATX 08 Jul 2007
BDSM ban.
Oh dear, the fact that we live in a modern, enlightened society, allows "deviants" to practice their sexual tastes. And that is how it should be! Perhaps the people against the publishing of BDSM images, will next legislate against sexy and revealing clothing, lest it incite the true deviants to break the law! Burkas, anyone?
Posted by: steven pyne 07 Jul 2007
comment
Thanks for the interesting article - nice to see someone willing to show some alternative points of view on this issue! To the comment above: It's those who proposed this law who are a minority wanting to tell others how to live. I also wish minority groups who want things to be banned didn't get the huge amounts of publicity that they do (as tragic as Jane Longhurst's murder was, it meant the MP Martin Salter was able to gain large amounts of publicity for his agenda, far more than any publicity those in opposition to the law have been given!) Who, exactly, are you labelling as "deviant"? People such as myself and those mentioned in the article do what we do in private; we don't care what other people do, and don't tell other people what to do. We do object to people telling us how we should live!
Posted by: mark 07 Jul 2007
A shocking piece of legislation
To Mr Thomson, the previous poster; the opposition to this law isn't about the minority "telling the majority how to live their lives". This law is rather about a minority being told how to live their lives by moralising politicians and the likes, in the absence of any evidence or justification. If the "majority" don't approve this material, they have a choice not to view it. But choice and consent are only meaningful if you are able to say "yes", as well as "no".
Posted by: Edward Smith 07 Jul 2007
FAO Charles Horne
"Deviants have no place in modern society and should NOT get the amount of publicity they do." So anyone who doesn't fit in with Mr Charles Horne's "majority view" is a "deviant" and "has no place in society"? Well, I'm sorry, Mr Horne, but neither you, nor Martin Salter MP, nor Mary Whitehouse and her followers are the arbiters of "what is acceptable in society". Our society is built on the rights of people to be *different*. We fought a *War* for the right of people to live their own lives in freedom! If you don't like something, don't do it. But don't have the unmitigated gall to say "You cannot do this because *I* don't like it!"
Posted by: Graham Marsden 07 Jul 2007
Fascism by the backdoor
I for one deplore the state in which our society is headed, but must also state the similarieties between our present political thought control and the fascist thought-patrol psychosis of germany & italy that resulted in workd war 2. All my grandparents died defending this country from such big brother loss of liberty. Is S&M new? - hardly, like many things it sentirely down to the common sense of the people involved (like RELIGION) and must not be dictated by government in such whooly and undefined stupidity.
Posted by: Jack Towersey 06 Jul 2007
Mr
Pass the bill and stop minority groups trying to dictate the the majority how we should live. Deviants have no place in modern society and should NOT get the amount of publicity they do. The "media" is also a minority group, but driven by making money regardless of the damage inflicted.
Posted by: Charles Horne 06 Jul 2007