Blogging for Backlash
Today is blogging for Backlash day.
The British government remains determined to push through its ridiculous and ill-concieved legislation, On possession of extreme pornography.
To be as brief as possible. The plan for this new came out of the case of Graham Coutts, who was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst. Coutts was apparently rather fond of 'violent' porn and this was blamed for his partner's death – apparently by strangulation. However, Coutts had a long history of breath play – witnesses in court testified to around 200 occasions on which he had safely indulged this interest – it certainly predated his viewing of 'violent' internet porn.
This last summer, senior judges suggested that the jury in the case should have been offered a manslaughter charge. In other words, they accepted the possibility that Coutt's defence – that it was a game that went wrong – was at least as possible as murder.
Last year, the government started its consultation process into the proposed new law, which would make it an offence to view porn for the first time. But the consultation was massively flawed. The initial document from the Home Office admitted that no evidence exists linking viewing any kind of porn with violence toward women and children, but still pushes forward, apparently in the name of 'protecting' women and children. Apparently, even if a woman consents to make an "extreme" porn movie, she needs protection.
There's nothing about men in the porn industry needing protection – which illustrates just how paternalistic this planned legislation is.
But there are many other problems. The Home Office hasn't defined what will constitute "extreme" porn. During the consultation, suggestions materialised that the Home Office may be considering basing its banned list on the list of subjects that the British Board of Film Classification deems too 'heavy' for 'R' rated films. This includes watersports and, of course, female ejaculation, since the BBFC doesn't believe that this exists and anything claiming to be female ejaculation must really be pissing.
Nobody has yet explained why watersports are so dreadful that scenes need censoring – but then logic has no place in any of this.
Of course, one of the other problems is what would happen if you accidentally opened or downloaded images that were banned, and the police came calling.
Then there's the privacy issue, which comes up because of the Human Rights Legislation.
Of course, it's all a good distraction from the almighty cock-up (so to speak) of Iraq.
Get informed, get involved and tell others.
The British government remains determined to push through its ridiculous and ill-concieved legislation, On possession of extreme pornography.
To be as brief as possible. The plan for this new came out of the case of Graham Coutts, who was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst. Coutts was apparently rather fond of 'violent' porn and this was blamed for his partner's death – apparently by strangulation. However, Coutts had a long history of breath play – witnesses in court testified to around 200 occasions on which he had safely indulged this interest – it certainly predated his viewing of 'violent' internet porn.
This last summer, senior judges suggested that the jury in the case should have been offered a manslaughter charge. In other words, they accepted the possibility that Coutt's defence – that it was a game that went wrong – was at least as possible as murder.
Last year, the government started its consultation process into the proposed new law, which would make it an offence to view porn for the first time. But the consultation was massively flawed. The initial document from the Home Office admitted that no evidence exists linking viewing any kind of porn with violence toward women and children, but still pushes forward, apparently in the name of 'protecting' women and children. Apparently, even if a woman consents to make an "extreme" porn movie, she needs protection.
There's nothing about men in the porn industry needing protection – which illustrates just how paternalistic this planned legislation is.
But there are many other problems. The Home Office hasn't defined what will constitute "extreme" porn. During the consultation, suggestions materialised that the Home Office may be considering basing its banned list on the list of subjects that the British Board of Film Classification deems too 'heavy' for 'R' rated films. This includes watersports and, of course, female ejaculation, since the BBFC doesn't believe that this exists and anything claiming to be female ejaculation must really be pissing.
Nobody has yet explained why watersports are so dreadful that scenes need censoring – but then logic has no place in any of this.
Of course, one of the other problems is what would happen if you accidentally opened or downloaded images that were banned, and the police came calling.
Then there's the privacy issue, which comes up because of the Human Rights Legislation.
Of course, it's all a good distraction from the almighty cock-up (so to speak) of Iraq.
Get informed, get involved and tell others.
posted by Amanda Kendal at 8:52 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home