Comments on: Something must be done

By: Consenting Adult Action Network

Consenting Adult Action Network — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:04:33 +0000

Fantastic article, great to see it. We have been and are continuing to organise actions relating to this extreme porn ban and encourage anyone who wishes to take action about this to get in touch. One of the things we are doing is forming a collection of images as evidence for us to seek advice on in advance of this ridiculous law’s commencement. If you have images you need advice about please contact us.

CAAN

By: Frank Fisher

Frank Fisher — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:48:21 +0000

Just two points Julian – it’s the Criminal Justice AND Immigration Act; it was a portmanteau right from the start, which is never a good sign.

More seriously, certificated films are indeed exempted in their *full* form, but if you extract images or videos – screengrabs for your PC desktop for instance – and if a court can be convinced that your motive for extracting those images was largely sexual… them BLAM, you’re a sex criminal.

I’m not sure how the law might view watching, say, Match of the Day on tv, but switching over intermittently to watch the rape scenes in Frenzy on the other side. I think you’d be okay if you did it live, but if you had Sky+ and were switching between recordings… I think you’re on the sex offenders list again.

By: Graham Marsden

Graham Marsden — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:05:45 +0000

Another eminently sensible article from Julian Petley in the face of an absolutely ludicrous piece of legislation from a control-freak, nanny state, Big Brother Government which thinks that if *they* don’t like something *we* should not be allowed to see it.

They have successfully introduced a Thought Crime into English law despite even the conclusion of their own “Rapid Evidence Assessment” (compiled by three feminists anti-pornography campaigners and which cherry picked data that agreed with their views) only that the data they chose “points in the same direction: towards the harmful effects associated with exposure to extreme pornographic material, in particular for men with a predisposition towards, or a history of, sexual aggression.”

This is hardly a ringing endorsement, let alone a proven conclusion, yet because there may be “harmful effects” to some men “with a predisposition towards, or a history of, sexual aggression” this seems sufficient to criminalise *anyone* who looks at such material since, obviously, they think that none of us can be trusted to look at this stuff without committing violent acts.

Given the number of people who have suffered “harmful effects” from men (and women!) who have a “predisposition or history of aggression” caused by alcohol, not to mention the number of deaths caused by drink drivers, their logic would suggest that banning alcohol would be a good idea as well…!

By: SteveMD

SteveMD — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:46:10 +0000

I think more and more people are getting tired of having the government looking over their shoulder at every turn. Is it enough people though? David Davis’ little publicity stunt may be in the name of civil liberties, but he ignored all approaches about this censorship law and even if they get in power, it is unlikely that the Torys will repeal it.

Mad though this law is, it has passed, what really can be done? Our only realistic hope is that when some poor sod is prosecuted under the Dangerous pictures act, that they have an opportunity to challenge it in some way. Slim chance.

By: Baz

Baz — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:13:53 +0000

Excellent article showing why this is bad law, unfortunately it looks like things are going to get worse. Similar situation here, though not yet law.

http://professorsapient.blogspot.com/2008/05/would-sketched-stick-figures-depicted.html

By: Index on Censorship: Something must be done | CyberLaw

Index on Censorship: Something must be done | CyberLaw — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:32:50 +0000

[...] Index on Censorship » Something must be done [...]