Letter from Charles Kennedy
Paul Tavener, 23 Oct 2005 19:28:33
The following letter from Charles Kennedy may be of some interest. It was posted today on the melonfarmers website chat room
www.melonfarmers.co.uk
[15495. Posted 22-Oct-2005 Sat 10:02]
Many thanks to David who wrote to Charles Kennedy and received the following response:
David
Thank you for your recent letter regarding pornography and censorship. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
With regard to the proposals on sexually explicit material, I recognise that some people see such material as a symptom, or even a cause, of a degraded society. Such material may seem worthless or offensive to many people, and I entirely respect and understand those concerns. However, Liberal Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have no role in censorship. In holding this policy, we are not condoning sexually explicit or violent material. We are stating the principle that people should be able to make their own judgments about what they say, read or see, without interference from the State, unless there will be real harm to others. As a Christian, I do not condone sexually explicit material. As a Liberal, I respect other people’s freedom to make their own choices.
However, our policy clearly states that freedom of expression is not absolute. We recognise that it may cause harm to others and so must be balanced against other rights and interests, such as privacy and the protection of children. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher, wrote:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” On Liberty, (1859).
Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly necessary to protect some other vital objective.
We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification. We have absolutely no intention of legalising films involving bestiality, for example, or child pornography. The production of such films, involving illegal and non-consenting acts, invokes tough criminal sentences. The tougher sentences now being imposed by the courts in relation to paedophile activity are to be welcomed. I am sure you will share my view that the abuse of children is a crime of the most serious degree, and is rightly addressed by the criminal law. In order to tackle the influx of child pornography from outside the UK’s jurisdiction then co-operation between the UK and the home authority is crucial. To clamp down on Internet paedophiles we support a self and co-regulatory approach to address standards for material sent via the Internet. We would also encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates for films released and distributed via the Internet.
In order to better protect those who work in the industry we identify an important role for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring that these employees enjoy full employment protection rights. We would also ensure that these employees are fully aware of their rights. And we advocate tougher penalties for those who exploit workers in this context.
Clearly, if people are being forced to participate in the making of sexually explicit material then those responsible should be prosecuted under the criminal law. And because of the vital importance of protecting children, we fully support the tougher sentences now being imposed by the court in relation to paedophile activity, including the exploitation of children in film.
There are some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed. They are based on misleading evidence. Almost every major official study in the United States, Canada and the UK has shown that it is simply not possible to establish a direct causal link between sexually explicit material and violent behaviour.
The paper recognises that there is an important role for local authorities in licensing sex shops, who should have power to refuse a license for specified objective offences such as allowing access to under-16s, offensive window-displays or selling unlawful goods. We recognise the concern of many communities that they should enjoy protection against the opening of sex shops in their area, and there would be restrictions in exceptional circumstances, for example if the shop is to be located next to a school or place of worship. But we believe that it is better to regulate what goods may be sold – and to whom - rather than where they may be sold, especially in a society where many such products are readily and legally available in newsagents and in stores such as Boots and Selfridges.
I really do appreciate you taking the time to write to me and was very interested to read your comments. I hope I have managed to outline the party’s position on this matter.
Thank you, once again, for your letter.
Yours sincerely,
Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP
(Dictated by Mr Kennedy)
clare, 23 Oct 2005 20:06:26
Depressing that he is saying that BBFC Classification should apply to censor what "adults may watch in private". At present they only apply to distribution and publication. After that unpromising start he doesn't say how such restrictions should operate. He doesn't say if people should or should not be criminalized for looking at material outside of BBFC guidelines or whether distribution through the net should be censored in some other, if so what, way.
"We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification".
Author wrote:
> The following letter from Charles Kennedy may be of some interest. It was posted today on the melonfarmers website chat room
> www.melonfarmers.co.uk
> [15495. Posted 22-Oct-2005 Sat 10:02]
> Many thanks to David who wrote to Charles Kennedy and received the following response:
> David
> Thank you for your recent letter regarding pornography and censorship. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
> With regard to the proposals on sexually explicit material, I recognise that some people see such material as a symptom, or even a cause, of a degraded society. Such material may seem worthless or offensive to many people, and I entirely respect and understand those concerns. However, Liberal Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have no role in censorship. In holding this policy, we are not condoning sexually explicit or violent material. We are stating the principle that people should be able to make their own judgments about what they say, read or see, without interference from the State, unless there will be real harm to others. As a Christian, I do not condone sexually explicit material. As a Liberal, I respect other people’s freedom to make their own choices.
> However, our policy clearly states that freedom of expression is not absolute. We recognise that it may cause harm to others and so must be balanced against other rights and interests, such as privacy and the protection of children. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher, wrote:
> “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” On Liberty, (1859).
> Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly necessary to protect some other vital objective.
> We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification. We have absolutely no intention of legalising films involving bestiality, for example, or child pornography. The production of such films, involving illegal and non-consenting acts, invokes tough criminal sentences. The tougher sentences now being imposed by the courts in relation to paedophile activity are to be welcomed. I am sure you will share my view that the abuse of children is a crime of the most serious degree, and is rightly addressed by the criminal law. In order to tackle the influx of child pornography from outside the UK’s jurisdiction then co-operation between the UK and the home authority is crucial. To clamp down on Internet paedophiles we support a self and co-regulatory approach to address standards for material sent via the Internet. We would also encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates for films released and distributed via the Internet.
> In order to better protect those who work in the industry we identify an important role for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring that these employees enjoy full employment protection rights. We would also ensure that these employees are fully aware of their rights. And we advocate tougher penalties for those who exploit workers in this context.
> Clearly, if people are being forced to participate in the making of sexually explicit material then those responsible should be prosecuted under the criminal law. And because of the vital importance of protecting children, we fully support the tougher sentences now being imposed by the court in relation to paedophile activity, including the exploitation of children in film.
> There are some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed. They are based on misleading evidence. Almost every major official study in the United States, Canada and the UK has shown that it is simply not possible to establish a direct causal link between sexually explicit material and violent behaviour.
> The paper recognises that there is an important role for local authorities in licensing sex shops, who should have power to refuse a license for specified objective offences such as allowing access to under-16s, offensive window-displays or selling unlawful goods. We recognise the concern of many communities that they should enjoy protection against the opening of sex shops in their area, and there would be restrictions in exceptional circumstances, for example if the shop is to be located next to a school or place of worship. But we believe that it is better to regulate what goods may be sold – and to whom - rather than where they may be sold, especially in a society where many such products are readily and legally available in newsagents and in stores such as Boots and Selfridges.
> I really do appreciate you taking the time to write to me and was very interested to read your comments. I hope I have managed to outline the party’s position on this matter.
> Thank you, once again, for your letter.
> Yours sincerely,
> Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP
> (Dictated by Mr Kennedy)
>
>
SnowdropExplodes, 23 Oct 2005 20:13:30
--- admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
> The following letter from Charles Kennedy may be of
> some interest. It was posted today on the
> melonfarmers website chat room
>
> www.melonfarmers.co.uk
>
> [15495. Posted 22-Oct-2005 Sat 10:02]
> Many thanks to David who wrote to Charles Kennedy
> and received the following response:
>
>
> David
>
> Thank you for your recent letter regarding
> pornography and censorship. Please accept my
> apologies for the delay in replying.
>
> With regard to the proposals on sexually explicit
> material, I recognise that some people see such
> material as a symptom, or even a cause, of a
> degraded society. Such material may seem worthless
> or offensive to many people, and I entirely respect
> and understand those concerns. However, Liberal
> Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have
> no role in censorship. In holding this policy, we
> are not condoning sexually explicit or violent
> material. We are stating the principle that people
> should be able to make their own judgments about
> what they say, read or see, without interference
> from the State, unless there will be real harm to
> others.
... supports our cause
>
> However, our policy clearly states that freedom of
> expression is not absolute. We recognise that it may
> cause harm to others and so must be balanced against
> other rights and interests, such as privacy and the
> protection of children.
... same ground as us
> Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly
> necessary to protect some other vital objective.
>
> We, of course, recognise that there must be some
> exceptions to what adults may watch in private and
> our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the
> content of sexually explicit material. This is based
> on the fundamental principles of legality and
> consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the
> British Board of Film Classification. We have
> absolutely no intention of legalising films
> involving bestiality, for example, or child
> pornography. The production of such films, involving
> illegal and non-consenting acts, invokes tough
> criminal sentences.
... is against our cause, because the material covered
by the proposed law is already beyond the BBFC
guidelines.
> We would also
> encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates
> for films released and distributed via the Internet.
... likewise
> There are some who argue that sexually explicit
> material leads people to commit acts of violence,
> but these claims are flawed. They are based on
> misleading evidence. Almost every major official
> study in the United States, Canada and the UK has
> shown that it is simply not possible to establish a
> direct causal link between sexually explicit
> material and violent behaviour.
... supports our cause.
At first glance it looks as though Charles Kennedy is
against the proposed law, but crucially, that part
about being based on the BBFC guidelines is
problematic. It feels to me like a case of "Go not
to the LibDems for support, for they will say both no
and yes" (apologies to JRR Tolkien).
Furthermore, I have visited the LibDem website and
cannot find any mention of the policy to which the Rt.
Hon. Charles Kennedy refers.
The letter is certainly very interesting, but it is
far too equivocal for us. It is, however,
encouraging that a lot of the points made in the
Backlash Mission Statement "Opposing Censorship", to
the point of (at times) seeming to use the same
language.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Morgarth, 23 Oct 2005 20:42:20
clare wrote:
> Depressing that he is saying that BBFC Classification
> should apply to censor what "adults may watch in private".
> At present they only apply to distribution and publication.
> After that unpromising start he doesn't say how such
> restrictions should operate. He doesn't say if people
> should or should not be criminalized for looking at
> material outside of BBFC guidelines or whether
> distribution through the net should be censored in some
> other, if so what, way.
I thought it was more promissing than that.
The reference to the BBFC is to "encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates for films released and distributed via the Internet." He doesn't suggest stopping the distribution but rather that the BBFC should advise on how it would be classified in the cinema. I can't see any real objection to giving that sort of information to help people make up their mind if they want to view it.
I also note he refers to "the production of such films, involving illegal and non-consenting acts, ... " and the prosecution of actual offences - not simply someone having pictures of them. He also refers to consent to take part and heath and safety issues - all of which conform to the BDSM "safe, Sane and Consensual" principle.
I can see no point at which he opposses the posession of pictures or psuedo pictures. The nearest he comes is "We have absolutely no intention of legalising films involving bestiality, for example, or child pornography." This statement is immediately qualified with comments about consent and legality in the making of such films.
Very positively he attacks the main plank in the consultation document with a quite unequivocal statement "There are some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed. They are based on misleading evidence."
For the leader of a major party with an eye to not offending the majority is a really positive endorsement of our position.
Morgarth
Paul Tavener, 23 Oct 2005 20:59:36
This is my take on what he’s saying (taking excessive liberties with reading between the lines):
If we were in power we wouldn’t propose this sort of thing, we would simply say that it was too difficult and get on with something else. As we’re not in power we’re in a bit of a fix as we have to deal with it. We want to keep all our traditional liberal friends on board but we also want to appeal to a much wider audience. So we’ll take a moderately liberal stance and throw a few hopeful life lines to the camps at either end of the liberal view point in the hope that everyone will vote for us.
Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 21:33:20
admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
> The following letter from Charles Kennedy may be of some interest.
Definitely, although there's a few problems that I can see, although
hopefully these are simply because they haven't been thought through...
> Liberal Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have no role
> in censorship. In holding this policy, we are not condoning sexually
> explicit or violent material. We are stating the principle that people
> should be able to make their own judgments about what they say, read
> or see, without interference from the State, unless there will be real
> harm to others.
This is good, especially in the light of his later statements that
research claiming "real harm" is flawed.
> As a Christian, I do not condone sexually explicit material. As a
> Liberal, I respect other people\x{2019}s freedom to make their own choices.
Also good.
Just as point "condone" means to "overlook" or "forgive" (the derivation
is from "to remit a debt") so AIUI not condone means he won't write it
off, but that he's big enough that he won't make a big deal of it either.
(Although I'm not really sure what being a Christian has to do with it,
after all, I don't know where it says in the Bible "thou shalt not look
at naughty pictures" unless you're planning on worshipping them...!)
> However, our policy clearly states that freedom of expression is not
> absolute. We recognise that it may cause harm to others and so must
> be balanced against other rights and interests, such as privacy and
> the protection of children.
This is fair enough. We're not arguing for the above.
> As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher, wrote:
Of his own free will... (Sorry! ;-)
> \x{201C}The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
> member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm
> to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
> warrant\x{201D} On Liberty, (1859).
Again, something we can entirely agree with, cf SSC etc.
> Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly necessary to protect
> some other vital objective.
>
> We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what
> adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship
> test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on
> the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the
> existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification.
This is where I can see a few problems relating to things not
necessarily having been thought through, because, as they stand, the
BBFC guidelines effectively forbid the use of gags in BDSM films because
"consent cannot be withdrawn" (they've obviously not heard of Safe
Signs), however the "build on" is encouraging, because it suggests that
those guidelines may be reviewed and broadened.
> We have absolutely no intention of legalising films involving
> bestiality, for example, or child pornography. The production of such
> films, involving illegal and non-consenting acts, invokes tough
> criminal sentences. The tougher sentences now being imposed by the
> courts in relation to paedophile activity are to be welcomed.
Again, something we're not arguing for and can agree with.
> I am sure you will share my view that the abuse of children is a
> crime of the most serious degree, and is rightly addressed by the
> criminal law. In order to tackle the influx of child pornography from
> outside the UK\x{2019}s jurisdiction then co-operation between the UK and
> the home authority is crucial. To clamp down on Internet paedophiles
> we support a self and co-regulatory approach to address standards for
> material sent via the Internet.
Another good point, because it mitigates against State imposed controls
(unlike what's now happening in the USA where the State is saying "if
you don't self-censor to the level we like, we'll take you to court"
which is hardly the most fair-minded option!)
> We would also encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates for
> films released and distributed via the Internet.
Now this is where I *really* see a problem, because if someone were to
video a scene and post that on their website, they would, theoretically,
require a BBFC classification!
Actually I believe that, according to a strict interpretation of the
law, this is actually the case now for *any* "moving picture" images
placed on the Web or otherwise "broadcast" or "made available", but so
far a blind eye seems to have been turned to it.
Given that a BBFC classification for an hour long presentation costs (I
think) £1000, this would be a crippling burden.
> In order to better protect those who work in the industry we identify
> an important role for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring
> that these employees enjoy full employment protection rights. We would
> also ensure that these employees are fully aware of their rights.
> And we advocate tougher penalties for those who exploit workers in
> this context.
Hmm, another problem. I can see this is well meaning, but it hasn't been
thought through, after all, where is the line between putting out a
scene you and your partner has done and a fully fledged commercial
presentation?
Is it if it's charged for? But what about "pay for membership" websites?
And how exactly would this be enforced? Would the H&SE require the right
to inspect your dungeon equipment and slave contracts before you were
allowed to film a scene?!
IMO this would be legislative overkill.
> Clearly, if people are being forced to participate in the making of
> sexually explicit material then those responsible should be prosecuted
> under the criminal law.
Agreed, but the legislation to protect them already exists.
> And because of the vital importance of protecting children, we fully
> support the tougher sentences now being imposed by the court in
> relation to paedophile activity, including the exploitation of
> children in film.
Again, something we can agree with.
> There are some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people
> to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed.
Hear, hear!!
> They are based on misleading evidence. Almost every major official
> study in the United States, Canada and the UK has shown that it is
> simply not possible to establish a direct causal link between
> sexually explicit material and violent behaviour.
Yay for Charlie :-)
> The paper recognises that there is an important role for local
> authorities in licensing sex shops, who should have power to refuse
> a license for specified objective offences such as allowing access to
> under-16s, offensive window-displays or selling unlawful goods. We
> recognise the concern of many communities that they should enjoy
> protection against the opening of sex shops in their area, and there
> would be restrictions in exceptional circumstances, for example if the
> shop is to be located next to a school or place of worship.
No problems with this, although the ludicrous system of licensing that
exists currently should be ditched (IIRC down here in Portsmouth it
costs £5,000 to *apply* for a sex shop licence and if the licence is
refused, you don't get your money back!)
> But we believe that it is better to regulate what goods may be sold \x{2013}
and
> to whom - rather than where they may be sold, especially in a society
> where many such products are readily and legally available in newsagents
> and in stores such as Boots and Selfridges.
Again: Hear, hear! (Provided the regulations on what may be sold aren't
silly, given the above)
> I really do appreciate you taking the time to write to me and was
> very interested to read your comments. I hope I have managed to
> outline the party\x{2019}s position on this matter.
So, mostly positive, with a few caveats.
I think I'm going to drop another letter to my (Lib Dem) MP, with the
comments above suggesting that their Party's policy is pretty good, but
needs a bit more thinking and a few tweaks (Oooh! :-) )
Cheers,
Graham.
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 21:35:16
Given that there are going to be talks with the LibDems in more detail....it would be worth putting together any thoughts that individuals have on this response. Bear in mind that Charles K is not omniscient - and without reference to his party spokespeople on the subject, is likely to come out with generalities.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Depressing that he is saying that BBFC Classification should apply to censor what "adults may watch in private". At present they only apply to distribution and publication. After that unpromising start he doesn't say how such restrictions should operate. He doesn't say if people should or should not be criminalized for looking at material outside of BBFC guidelines or whether distribution through the net should be censored in some other, if so what, way.
> "We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification".
> Author wrote:
> > The following letter from Charles Kennedy may be of some interest. It was posted today on the melonfarmers website chat room
> > www.melonfarmers.co.uk
> > [15495. Posted 22-Oct-2005 Sat 10:02]
> > Many thanks to David who wrote to Charles Kennedy and received the following response:
> > David
> > Thank you for your recent letter regarding pornography and censorship. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
> > With regard to the proposals on sexually explicit material, I recognise that some people see such material as a symptom, or even a cause, of a degraded society. Such material may seem worthless or offensive to many people, and I entirely respect and understand those concerns. However, Liberal Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have no role in censorship. In holding this policy, we are not condoning sexually explicit or violent material. We are stating the principle that people should be able to make their own judgments about what they say, read or see, without interference from the State, unless there will be real harm to others. As a Christian, I do not condone sexually explicit material. As a Liberal, I respect other people’s freedom to make their own choices.
> > However, our policy clearly states that freedom of expression is not absolute. We recognise that it may cause harm to others and so must be balanced against other rights and interests, such as privacy and the protection of children. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher, wrote:
> > “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” On Liberty, (1859).
> > Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly necessary to protect some other vital objective.
> > We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification. We have absolutely no intention of legalising films involving bestiality, for example, or child pornography. The production of such films, involving illegal and non-consenting acts, invokes tough criminal sentences. The tougher sentences now being imposed by the courts in relation to paedophile activity are to be welcomed. I am sure you will share my view that the abuse of children is a crime of the most serious degree, and is rightly addressed by the criminal law. In order to tackle the influx of child pornography from outside the UK’s jurisdiction then co-operation between the UK and the home authority is crucial. To clamp down on Internet paedophiles we support a self and co-regulatory approach to address standards for material sent via the Internet. We would also encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates for films released and distributed via the Internet.
> > In order to better protect those who work in the industry we identify an important role for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring that these employees enjoy full employment protection rights. We would also ensure that these employees are fully aware of their rights. And we advocate tougher penalties for those who exploit workers in this context.
> > Clearly, if people are being forced to participate in the making of sexually explicit material then those responsible should be prosecuted under the criminal law. And because of the vital importance of protecting children, we fully support the tougher sentences now being imposed by the court in relation to paedophile activity, including the exploitation of children in film.
> > There are some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed. They are based on misleading evidence. Almost every major official study in the United States, Canada and the UK has shown that it is simply not possible to establish a direct causal link between sexually explicit material and violent behaviour.
> > The paper recognises that there is an important role for local authorities in licensing sex shops, who should have power to refuse a license for specified objective offences such as allowing access to under-16s, offensive window-displays or selling unlawful goods. We recognise the concern of many communities that they should enjoy protection against the opening of sex shops in their area, and there would be restrictions in exceptional circumstances, for example if the shop is to be located next to a school or place of worship. But we believe that it is better to regulate what goods may be sold – and to whom - rather than where they may be sold, especially in a society where many such products are readily and legally available in newsagents and in stores such as Boots and Selfridges.
> > I really do appreciate you taking the time to write to me and was very interested to read your comments. I hope I have managed to outline the party’s position on this matter.
> > Thank you, once again, for your letter.
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP
> > (Dictated by Mr Kennedy)
> >
> >
>
>
Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 21:36:57
morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
> The reference to the BBFC is to "encourage the BBFC to issue
> advisory certificates for films released and distributed via
> the Internet." He doesn't suggest stopping the distribution
> but rather that the BBFC should advise on how it would be
> classified in the cinema. I can't see any real objection to
> giving that sort of information to help people make up
> their mind if they want to view it.
See my comments regarding his letter. BBCF classification is expensive
and slow and would hammer "home produced" material (which, AIUI,
technically already falls under its remit).
Most adult sites I've seen have warnings about "sexually explicit", "no
under 18's" etc which should be sufficient that anyone going past them
does so "at their own risk" without needing the full weight of the
BBFC's approval.
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 21:38:02
admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
> This is my take on what he\x{2019}s saying
Oooh! You *cynic* you! ;-)
Cheers,
Graham.
clare, 23 Oct 2005 21:41:37
Would be useful first to have a copy of the fuller "policy" that he refers to in the answer. Snowdrop and I have both looked on the LibDem website, where it doesn't appear. Can you get a copy from one of your Lib contacts?
Author wrote:
> Given that there are going to be talks with the LibDems in more detail....it would be worth putting together any thoughts that individuals have on this response. Bear in mind that Charles K is not omniscient - and without reference to his party spokespeople on the subject, is likely to come out with generalities.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Depressing that he is saying that BBFC Classification should apply to censor what "adults may watch in private". At present they only apply to distribution and publication. After that unpromising start he doesn't say how such restrictions should operate. He doesn't say if people should or should not be criminalized for looking at material outside of BBFC guidelines or whether distribution through the net should be censored in some other, if so what, way.
> > "We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification".
> > Author wrote:
> > > The following letter from Charles Kennedy may be of some interest. It was posted today on the melonfarmers website chat room
> > > www.melonfarmers.co.uk
> > > [15495. Posted 22-Oct-2005 Sat 10:02]
> > > Many thanks to David who wrote to Charles Kennedy and received the following response:
> > > David
> > > Thank you for your recent letter regarding pornography and censorship. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
> > > With regard to the proposals on sexually explicit material, I recognise that some people see such material as a symptom, or even a cause, of a degraded society. Such material may seem worthless or offensive to many people, and I entirely respect and understand those concerns. However, Liberal Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have no role in censorship. In holding this policy, we are not condoning sexually explicit or violent material. We are stating the principle that people should be able to make their own judgments about what they say, read or see, without interference from the State, unless there will be real harm to others. As a Christian, I do not condone sexually explicit material. As a Liberal, I respect other people’s freedom to make their own choices.
> > > However, our policy clearly states that freedom of expression is not absolute. We recognise that it may cause harm to others and so must be balanced against other rights and interests, such as privacy and the protection of children. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher, wrote:
> > > “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” On Liberty, (1859).
> > > Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly necessary to protect some other vital objective.
> > > We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification. We have absolutely no intention of legalising films involving bestiality, for example, or child pornography. The production of such films, involving illegal and non-consenting acts, invokes tough criminal sentences. The tougher sentences now being imposed by the courts in relation to paedophile activity are to be welcomed. I am sure you will share my view that the abuse of children is a crime of the most serious degree, and is rightly addressed by the criminal law. In order to tackle the influx of child pornography from outside the UK’s jurisdiction then co-operation between the UK and the home authority is crucial. To clamp down on Internet paedophiles we support a self and co-regulatory approach to address standards for material sent via the Internet. We would also encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates for films released and distributed via the Internet.
> > > In order to better protect those who work in the industry we identify an important role for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring that these employees enjoy full employment protection rights. We would also ensure that these employees are fully aware of their rights. And we advocate tougher penalties for those who exploit workers in this context.
> > > Clearly, if people are being forced to participate in the making of sexually explicit material then those responsible should be prosecuted under the criminal law. And because of the vital importance of protecting children, we fully support the tougher sentences now being imposed by the court in relation to paedophile activity, including the exploitation of children in film.
> > > There are some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed. They are based on misleading evidence. Almost every major official study in the United States, Canada and the UK has shown that it is simply not possible to establish a direct causal link between sexually explicit material and violent behaviour.
> > > The paper recognises that there is an important role for local authorities in licensing sex shops, who should have power to refuse a license for specified objective offences such as allowing access to under-16s, offensive window-displays or selling unlawful goods. We recognise the concern of many communities that they should enjoy protection against the opening of sex shops in their area, and there would be restrictions in exceptional circumstances, for example if the shop is to be located next to a school or place of worship. But we believe that it is better to regulate what goods may be sold – and to whom - rather than where they may be sold, especially in a society where many such products are readily and legally available in newsagents and in stores such as Boots and Selfridges.
> > > I really do appreciate you taking the time to write to me and was very interested to read your comments. I hope I have managed to outline the party’s position on this matter.
> > > Thank you, once again, for your letter.
> > > Yours sincerely,
> > > Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP
> > > (Dictated by Mr Kennedy)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
AV8R, 23 Oct 2005 22:54:24
The trouble with a letter such as this, is that it is long on principle and short on specifics..... A Politician must have written it!!!!
But seriously, I personally believe that this letter is a very realistic appraisal of where the future of our cause lies.
He specifically mentions that consent is important, therefore a SSC-BDSM oriented case has merit.
He specifically mentions Bestiality is unnacceptable, no surprise there, and no doubt a warning that whilst activities between consenting adults may have some scope for support, images showing acts of bestiality and necro are so repugnant to the general population that there is no hope of ever getting any politician to oppose those parts of the legislation.
I do believe that we must continue opposing the legislation in it's entirety, but in parallel start building a negotiation position to exclude what we can, ie, consensual BDSM, as this is the only area where it may be possible for us to gain enough support to make a difference.
I think this letter reinforces that perspective.
Av8r
Author wrote:
> Would be useful first to have a copy of the fuller "policy" that he refers to in the answer. Snowdrop and I have both looked on the LibDem website, where it doesn't appear. Can you get a copy from one of your Lib contacts?
> Author wrote:
> > Given that there are going to be talks with the LibDems in more detail....it would be worth putting together any thoughts that individuals have on this response. Bear in mind that Charles K is not omniscient - and without reference to his party spokespeople on the subject, is likely to come out with generalities.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Depressing that he is saying that BBFC Classification should apply to censor what "adults may watch in private". At present they only apply to distribution and publication. After that unpromising start he doesn't say how such restrictions should operate. He doesn't say if people should or should not be criminalized for looking at material outside of BBFC guidelines or whether distribution through the net should be censored in some other, if so what, way.
> > > "We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification".
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > The following letter from Charles Kennedy may be of some interest. It was posted today on the melonfarmers website chat room
> > > > www.melonfarmers.co.uk
> > > > [15495. Posted 22-Oct-2005 Sat 10:02]
> > > > Many thanks to David who wrote to Charles Kennedy and received the following response:
> > > > David
> > > > Thank you for your recent letter regarding pornography and censorship. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
> > > > With regard to the proposals on sexually explicit material, I recognise that some people see such material as a symptom, or even a cause, of a degraded society. Such material may seem worthless or offensive to many people, and I entirely respect and understand those concerns. However, Liberal Democrats firmly believe that matters of taste have no role in censorship. In holding this policy, we are not condoning sexually explicit or violent material. We are stating the principle that people should be able to make their own judgments about what they say, read or see, without interference from the State, unless there will be real harm to others. As a Christian, I do not condone sexually explicit material. As a Liberal, I respect other people’s freedom to make their own choices.
> > > > However, our policy clearly states that freedom of expression is not absolute. We recognise that it may cause harm to others and so must be balanced against other rights and interests, such as privacy and the protection of children. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher, wrote:
> > > > “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” On Liberty, (1859).
> > > > Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly necessary to protect some other vital objective.
> > > > We, of course, recognise that there must be some exceptions to what adults may watch in private and our policy sets out a clear censorship test for the content of sexually explicit material. This is based on the fundamental principles of legality and consent and builds on the existing guidelines of the British Board of Film Classification. We have absolutely no intention of legalising films involving bestiality, for example, or child pornography. The production of such films, involving illegal and non-consenting acts, invokes tough criminal sentences. The tougher sentences now being imposed by the courts in relation to paedophile activity are to be welcomed. I am sure you will share my view that the abuse of children is a crime of the most serious degree, and is rightly addressed by the criminal law. In order to tackle the influx of child pornography from outside the UK’s jurisdiction then co-operation between the UK and the home authority is crucial. To clamp down on Internet paedophiles we support a self and co-regulatory approach to address standards for material sent via the Internet. We would also encourage the BBFC to issue advisory certificates for films released and distributed via the Internet.
> > > > In order to better protect those who work in the industry we identify an important role for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring that these employees enjoy full employment protection rights. We would also ensure that these employees are fully aware of their rights. And we advocate tougher penalties for those who exploit workers in this context.
> > > > Clearly, if people are being forced to participate in the making of sexually explicit material then those responsible should be prosecuted under the criminal law. And because of the vital importance of protecting children, we fully support the tougher sentences now being imposed by the court in relation to paedophile activity, including the exploitation of children in film.
> > > > There are some who argue that sexually explicit material leads people to commit acts of violence, but these claims are flawed. They are based on misleading evidence. Almost every major official study in the United States, Canada and the UK has shown that it is simply not possible to establish a direct causal link between sexually explicit material and violent behaviour.
> > > > The paper recognises that there is an important role for local authorities in licensing sex shops, who should have power to refuse a license for specified objective offences such as allowing access to under-16s, offensive window-displays or selling unlawful goods. We recognise the concern of many communities that they should enjoy protection against the opening of sex shops in their area, and there would be restrictions in exceptional circumstances, for example if the shop is to be located next to a school or place of worship. But we believe that it is better to regulate what goods may be sold – and to whom - rather than where they may be sold, especially in a society where many such products are readily and legally available in newsagents and in stores such as Boots and Selfridges.
> > > > I really do appreciate you taking the time to write to me and was very interested to read your comments. I hope I have managed to outline the party’s position on this matter.
> > > > Thank you, once again, for your letter.
> > > > Yours sincerely,
> > > > Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP
> > > > (Dictated by Mr Kennedy)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Laurence, 24 Oct 2005 03:47:51
>>>>>>> As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher, wrote:
> > > > > “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” On Liberty, (1859).
> > > > > Censorship should no be imposed unless it is truly necessary to protect some other vital objective.
JSM also said :-
"No conduct should be suppressed by law unless it can be shown to harm someone"
John Stuart Mill - 1806 - 1873
Back to the demand for proof I think.
Kind regards
Laurence
demolitionred, 24 Oct 2005 07:44:38
I'd just like to point out -- but am having it checked that this letter is almost verbatim the LIBdem stance on censorship...not a Kennedy point of view, a part f their manifestoc, including the quote from JS Mill...
I'll let you know it I can pick up any bit of it that is a personal view...and try and get a copy of the LibDem paper on censorship.
frederic bloggs, 24 Oct 2005 10:20:38
Having read this responce carefully, I would have to say that from this letter alone he would be in support of this consultation document, as the bbfc guidelines are exactly the criteria the consultation proposes.
Whether this would mean he would support or oppose any legislation coming out of the consultation document is a very different matter, and would in a great part depend on the precise wording of any such legislation.
«No Name Set», 27 Oct 2005 18:28:19
it would be interesting to know what was in the letter that CK
was responding to. It strikes me as odd that he should fo on at
such length about child porn/abuse when that is not involved in
the current issue. Is this a sensible response to something in
the letter from his constituent (?) to hich he is replyin, and
if not, why did he see fit to stick it all in?
Of course, if he has, as DemRed suggests, merely cut and pasted
a whole section from some LD position paper on censorship and
porn, then maybe it is there because he cut and pasted with
insufficient selectivity.
'With regard to graham's point about employment rights: this
surely would apply where there is a contrct of employment
between the actors/models appearing inthe pics/movies in
quesiton and an employer who is making/distributing them -
remembering that under English law a contract can be verbal and
need not have formal paperwork. A couple who agree to film
themselves in action and post the result on a PPV website would
normally be regarded as entrepreneurs working together,
copperating on the production on the pic/film and with any
proceeds from the PPV going intot heir shared household funds.
Thus the employment stuff wouldn't apply - that's only for the
situation where one person agrees to act/model for a given
benefit (money, or payment in kind) and the other person pays
the actor/model and takes the payments (if any) and the risk
(that there won't be any payments and they have to fork out for
the costs anyway).
Of course, if they couple's but on enterprise starts to pay off
rather well, the Revenue may then start to think they should be
paying tax on the takings, and paying a self-employed stamp -
but that's another story (she says, having just got the next
quarter's bill for hers today).
--
Rosemary