Comments on: Sex Crime 2008 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/05/sex-crime-2008/ for free expression Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:09:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Baz http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/05/sex-crime-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-505 Baz Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:51:46 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=375#comment-505 Had to write again, thanks for the e-mail. A blog called reciprocity and an e-mail with no return address, priceless :-) Prof Had to write again, thanks for the e-mail. A blog called reciprocity and an e-mail with no return address, priceless :-)

Prof

]]> By: Owners of Madonna’s SEX book may be jailed « Dankprofessor’s Weblog http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/05/sex-crime-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-481 Owners of Madonna’s SEX book may be jailed « Dankprofessor’s Weblog Sun, 25 May 2008 23:06:27 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=375#comment-481 [...] website Index on Censorship facilitated my becoming more cognizant of how many persons could become entangled by this law.  [...] [...] website Index on Censorship facilitated my becoming more cognizant of how many persons could become entangled by this law.  [...]

]]> By: Graham Marsden http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/05/sex-crime-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-436 Graham Marsden Fri, 09 May 2008 17:52:32 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=375#comment-436 Well, I'm astonished to see that I actually agree with John Beyer (Mary Whitehouse's successor) but only as far as I agree that there need to be clear guidelines as to what is illegal and what is not. Unfortunately that's where it ends because what Mr Beyer wants made illegal is anything that he doesn't like, even if it is legal, he appears to think that *his* personal tastes should govern what *we* are allowed to see. Well, I’m astonished to see that I actually agree with John Beyer (Mary Whitehouse’s successor) but only as far as I agree that there need to be clear guidelines as to what is illegal and what is not.

Unfortunately that’s where it ends because what Mr Beyer wants made illegal is anything that he doesn’t like, even if it is legal, he appears to think that *his* personal tastes should govern what *we* are allowed to see.

]]> By: Paul Gravette http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/05/sex-crime-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-434 Paul Gravette Fri, 09 May 2008 15:10:19 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=375#comment-434 Images of real abuse, bestiality and necrophilia should be controlled. But this law goes much, much further. It deliberately goes out of its way to criminalise fictional images. That means we now have the situation where a citizen of this country can be locked up for three years, for looking, in private, at images of consenting adults taking part in legal activities. You can do it, but don't look at images of others doing it, not even in private, where no one else can see. Images can be legal or illegal depending on why the prosecution thinks you have them. Context can be argued by the prosecution, but not the defence. If you appear in the image it's legal, but if you took the image and don't appear in it, it's illegal. Legal activities are now illegal to look at, even in private. Lawyers are confused about what is and is not illegal. The government have no credible evidence that viewing this fictional material causes harm of any kind, yet they propose to lock people up for three years, simply for looking, in private? This is insane. Images of real abuse, bestiality and necrophilia should be controlled. But this law goes much, much further. It deliberately goes out of its way to criminalise fictional images.

That means we now have the situation where a citizen of this country can be locked up for three years, for looking, in private, at images of consenting adults taking part in legal activities.

You can do it, but don’t look at images of others doing it, not even in private, where no one else can see.

Images can be legal or illegal depending on why the prosecution thinks you have them. Context can be argued by the prosecution, but not the defence. If you appear in the image it’s legal, but if you took the image and don’t appear in it, it’s illegal. Legal activities are now illegal to look at, even in private. Lawyers are confused about what is and is not illegal.

The government have no credible evidence that viewing this fictional material causes harm of any kind, yet they propose to lock people up for three years, simply for looking, in private?

This is insane.

]]> By: D’log :: blogging since 2000 » Extreme measures http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/05/sex-crime-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-432 D’log :: blogging since 2000 » Extreme measures Fri, 09 May 2008 04:47:18 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=375#comment-432 [...] There are early reports that protesters today burned valuable vintage first-edition photography books on the steps of the British Library, including Madonna’s Sex (worth £700+) and books by Robert Mapplethorpe, in protest at the government’s ‘Extreme Images’ bill. Update: Index on Censorship reports. [...] [...] There are early reports that protesters today burned valuable vintage first-edition photography books on the steps of the British Library, including Madonna’s Sex (worth £700+) and books by Robert Mapplethorpe, in protest at the government’s ‘Extreme Images’ bill. Update: Index on Censorship reports. [...]

]]>