The Jane Longhurst petition

demolitionred, 02 Sep 2005 16:47:49

I checked out the wording of the petition. No wonder so many people are signing...hardly shows the different suggested outcomes from the consultation, does it?

The Jane Longhurst Campaign Against
Violent Internet Pornography


We the undersigned object to the presence of extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the
name of sexual gratification. We note the recent horrific murder of Brighton school teacher Jane Longhurst was
by a man who had become an avid user of corrupting internet sites such as ‘necrobabes’, ‘death by asphyxia’
and ‘hanging bitches’. We support the call by the family of Jane Longhurst for the Government and Internet
Service Providers to take action to block access to these sites; for an overhaul of the Obscene Publications Act to
make it a criminal offence to possess such images; for better international cooperation to close down sites
hosted abroad and for internet images in the UK to be included in the remit of OFCOM.


Lothario, 02 Sep 2005 17:22:44

Note that the petition calls for censorship ("to take action to block
access to these sites") as well as criminalising possession, but the
government consultation acknowleges the practical (and no doubt,
political) difficulties with doing this and instead opts only to
criminalise possession/consumption.

The petition doesn't make the case that the proposed remedies will
either be effective in solving the supposed problem, nor that they
would be a proportionate response.

If anything, they make their own case against the proposals. If
viewing this material, which according to them is widespread and
easily accessible, lead to a significant number of people being
encouraged to emulate the criminal acts depicted, we'd be seeing a
significant rise in cases of rape, murder and torture. The fact that
there is no such rise suggests that there is no correlation between
the two, let alone causation.

So what this comes down to is legislating on the basis of what they'd
probably think of as morality, but I'd call "taste". I'd say it's not
moral because there isn't any evidence of harm, and I don't see how
you can make a moral case against something that's harmless, however
objectionable.


Manniq, 02 Sep 2005 18:03:23

Author wrote:
> Note that the petition calls for censorship ("to take action to block
> access to these sites") as well as criminalising possession, but the
> government consultation acknowleges the practical (and no doubt,
> political) difficulties with doing this and instead opts only to
> criminalise possession/consumption.




I suspect it also opens up another can of worms that has been niggling at me for some time (apologies for the mixed metaphors). However, this government is a legislating government. There is so much new legislation that it becomes difficult for the ordinary citizen to keep up.

Now, this is already recognised to some extent, in that companies are required to be more 'responsible' in their dealings with consumers, because they have resources that you and I do not, to comply with legislation.

But even so. The argument is that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. But I begin to question that. When even Lord Woolf calls for a legislative pause, how are we to keep up?

I tend to believe in long trends. From the '50's to '70's we liberalised. Now we live in the backlash from that. The question is whether this government is at the tail end of the backlash (and the wave is about to turn) or whether the trend has a way to run yet.

The relevance? Well, whilst I don't think civil liberties arguments alone will save us, it might be we will find some unexpected allies. I have a sneaking feeling, for instance, that on this 'too much law' angle, we might even 'turn' the Daily Mail.

Whether the Sun would come too is another question.

Regards,

M