China web censorship controversy continues

June 23rd, 2009

FBI tried to stop Deep Throat porn film

June 22nd, 2009

Setting the censorship standard

April 28th, 2009

Thirty years on, the Williams Committee Report still provides a better framework for film classification than the lamentable Obscene Publications Act, says
Julian Petley
(more…)

Not in my backyard

April 3rd, 2009

The Internet threatens to make US obscenity law unworkable, says Marjorie Heins

(more…)

Australia censors Wikileaks page

March 18th, 2009

Something must be done

June 10th, 2008

The government’s latest legislation on ‘extreme pornography’ is based on ill-informed notions, writes
Julian Petley

Question: what do Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Last Exit to Brooklyn and Inside Linda Lovelace have in common? Answer: they were all subject to failed prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 & 1964 (OPA). Next question: what do the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Video Recordings Act 1984, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice Act 2008 have in common? Answer: they are all attempts to circumvent the OPA, whose provisions the censorious have long agitated against as overly liberal and ‘permissive’.

Thanks to the last of these measures, those suspected of possessing the ‘wrong’ kind of pornography can now look forward to having their homes and offices trashed by the police and their reputations publicly dragged through the mud; if convicted, they could languish for up to three years in prison. So how did we arrive at this extraordinary state of affairs?
(more…)

Sex Crime 2008

May 8th, 2008

Visual artists and even pop stars could face prosecution under new British legislation, writes John Ozimek

Collectors looking to make a fast buck by investing in erotica had a nervous awakening this morning. And fans of Madonna were left wondering whether they would need to mutilate one of her most famous books.

The Criminal Justice Bill, which received royal assent today, includes new laws on ‘extreme pornography’. This makes it illegal to possess images that depict ‘explicit realistic extreme acts’ that are also ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character’. The penalty, if found guilty, is up to three years in prison.

Supporters claim that the target of the bill is very clear. Others are not so sure.

Sex, by Madonna, caused controversy on its publication in 1992. It was shot by respected photographer Steven Meisel. But critics accused it of including hardcore images of sado-masochism and even bestiality. In one photo, Madonna appears threatened by a knife. In another she appears in a sexually suggestive pose with a dog. Sex was banned in Japan.

Up to 100,000 copies may still be owned in the UK. Mint copies of this work are being traded for up to £700 on Amazon.

Confusion reigns. A barrister with expertise in this area argues that at least one of the images in Madonna’s book could pass all three tests set by the new law.
(more…)

Legislating in Haste

March 11th, 2008

Proponents of a ban on ‘extreme pornography’ are looking increasingly desperate in their attempts to push their plan through Parliament, writes Julian Petley

Faced with a rising tide of opposition in the Lords, the government dropped yet more parts of its Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill on 27 February, including a crackdown on prostitution and a proposal which would have stopped the appeal court quashing convictions on a technicality in cases where there was ‘no reasonable doubt’ about a defendant’s guilt. However, the highly controversial clauses which will make it an offence even to possess certain kinds of ill-defined pornography remain firmly in place, in spite of the grave doubts about them now being raised — albeit belatedly — in Parliament.

For example, in its legislative scrutiny of the bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that the government had already made it clear that it felt that the seriousness of the proposed offences justified interference with Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concern, respectively, an individual’s right to private life and their right freely to receive and impart information (including information which is offensive or unpalatable). However, the committee was concerned whether ‘the definition of the new offence is sufficiently precise and foreseeable’ to satisfy the requirement that interferences with these rights are ‘in accordance with the law’. Thus it asked the minister to explain how an individual user of pornography would be able to know whether their possession of a particular image would constitute a criminal offence. In reply, he stated that the government believed that the user of such material would have ‘no difficulty in recognising pornography’ and that extreme images would be “recognisable” or “easily recognisable”. However, the committee remained unhappy about ‘the vagueness of the definition of the offence’, noting that ‘an assessment of whether an image is or is not ‘extreme’ is inherently subjective and may not, in every case, be, as the government suggests, “recognisable” or “easily recognisable”. This means that individuals seeking to regulate their conduct in accordance with the criminal law cannot be certain that they will not be committing a criminal offence by having certain images in their possession.’ They concluded: ‘We look forward to the government bringing forward an amendment to make the scope of the new offence more precise.’

(more…)