some more thoughts
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 06:19:09
I also wanted to raise the subject of the Longhurst campaign.
The government keeps saying the proposals have nothing to do with that but riollling her out....
I beleive we should steer clear of this.
If we are asked obvoulsy we feel deep deep sympathy for the pain suffered but beeleive the govenrment has been disingenous linking itself to this campaign and the proposals neither answer the demands of the campaign nor will it save other women.
(the last bit we have to be careful with becasue it calls into question the causal link and proof etc,,,if we have to resort to Chris's evidence that there is 60 years of evidence our audience will have turned off)
any thoughts....
also has anyone had any success with Amnesty yet?
I'm sure they don't want to be on te side they have been forced into.
If the laws were to go through, they would be figting against prisoners of conscience, instead of defending us.
I think there is a case for lobbying Amnesty, Liberty and other rights groups. People arrested under these proposed laws will be arrested for what they might do and surely are a prime example of the people these groups were set out to defend.
It has also been suggested to me that we need to lobby the CPS about the unworkability of these proposals, the extra workload....
clare, 08 Sep 2005 09:20:08
> It has also been suggested to me that we need to lobby the CPS about the unworkability of these proposals, the extra workload....
This part is giving me the heebie geebies. I'm not so sure that enforcement unworkability is going to be such a big problem. Did anyone see the report in yesterday's Times about Yahoo collaborating with the Chinese government on finding and prosecuting a journalist through his web usage and email? Also consider the changes in use of internet surveillance in Court that are to be introduced to combat steps preparatory to terrorism. Security Service opposition to use of this material in Court won't apply to other "crimes of internet usage"
That aside, I don't think enforcement issues are our concern.
Clare
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 09:25:47
But what do you think about lobbying the CPS? a group that is not used to such public exposure, full mail sacks?
someone suggested we could mail with images we have on our websites, we have viewed, asking whether it is is illegal to view, whether the law would be retrospective, what things are illegal, etc, etc...
clare, 08 Sep 2005 09:33:05
Author wrote:
> But what do you think about lobbying the CPS? a group that is not used to such public exposure, full mail sacks?
> someone suggested we could mail with images we have on our websites, we have viewed, asking whether it is is illegal to view, whether the law would be retrospective, what things are illegal, etc, etc...
I don't think the CPS will have a view on any of those things and if they do they won't reveal it. They are advocates, not a separate interest group like the police. The job in hand is for the legislators. The CPS won't know if the law will be retrospective, but it won't be. You can't make crime retrospective. The CPS won't know what images will be illegal until the law is finalised and guidelines have been issued.
clare, 08 Sep 2005 10:12:03
I also want to add, by way of review of my own suggested bullet points for the Petition and the points that are on the backlash website that I now think that the BIG point is that where there is an offence of possession
* the punishment of the accused does not remove the image from the public domain. It does not have ANY effect on the ability of other adults or children to access the offending image or have any impact whatsoever on the continuing production and publication of similar images.
Even if the government's fears are justified and such images do lead to copycat criminal action, the proposals do absolutely nothing to restrict the availability of those images whether to children, potential criminals or Mr and Mrs average horny.
Thus arguments about the absence of evidence that harm is caused or the unreasonableness of government assumptions about the effect of such images are in fact a distracting side show. I'm sure lots of people have made this point already and I've been guilty of not seeing the wood for the trees. But now that the penny has finally dropped I feel quite strongly that we should focus on this central simple point and not on the distracting side shows. The material on evidence of harm will have to be prepared as a secondary "even if" argument, but I think to give equal force to these points would be a mistake.
Of course the law might have some effect if the law generates such fear of prosecution amoung UK users of internet porn that they stop accessing such sites AND the loss in the UK viewers has some effect on the production and publication of these images from other jurisdictions. This proposition only has to be stated to be seen as absurd. However, it may be worth trying to get some figures (from god knows where) of the kind of hits that porn sites get and where from. Maybe one could even write to the webmaster of Necrobabes or other less contentious sites and see if they are able to release figures of their total hits by UK as against rest of the world.
On a separate note I am not convinced that this campaign should deal with punishment and enforcement problems at all. Neither arise unless there is an offence. Difficulty of enforcement is not a reason to abandon legislaton if it is otherwise necessary. Terrorism being the obvious example. The length of sentence point is wrong. Rape murder and GHB all get more than 3 years.
Clare
SnowdropExplodes, 08 Sep 2005 10:29:21
--- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> But what do you think about lobbying the CPS? a
> group that is not used to such public exposure, full
> mail sacks?
>
>
> someone suggested we could mail with images we have
> on our websites, we have viewed, asking whether it
> is is illegal to view, whether the law would be
> retrospective, what things are illegal, etc, etc...
Emailing the images would count under current
interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act, as
publication (at least, as I understood the explanation
of already existing legislation in the consultation
paper).
I suspect that, since it would obviously be a
campaign, it would be argued (and possibly
successfully) that we knew what we were doing when we
were sending them.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
clare, 08 Sep 2005 10:50:28
Publication includes "to show"
Giving someone the password to your computer so that they can access images on it, counts as "to show".
> Emailing the images would count under current
> interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act, as
> publication (at least, as I understood the explanation
> of already existing legislation in the consultation
> paper).
> I suspect that, since it would obviously be a
> campaign, it would be argued (and possibly
> successfully) that we knew what we were doing when we
> were sending them.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Lothario, 08 Sep 2005 10:52:16
Your points are valid in themselves but I don't think your main
argument - that punishing possession won't affect distribution - is
what the governement are primarily using to justify this. It is a
minor supporting argument from them, and a weak one.
The main issue is "abhorrence". Para 11: "The underlying premise of
this document is that this material should have no place in our
society." They've spelled it out quite clearly. Everything else is
just window dressing.
It also forms the basis of question 2: "In the absence of conclusive
research results as to its possible negative effects, do you think
that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading,
violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?"
From the executive summary we get this wonderful circular argument:
"Closing down sources of supply and distribution obviated the need for
a possession offence. However, the global nature of the internet makes
this approach much more difficult. We are determined to act where we
can against publishers but require the individual to take greater
responsibility if we are to maintain our controls on illegal material.
We believe the material which is under consideration would be
abhorrent to most people and has no place in our society."
In other words, they are acknowleging that they have gone as far as
they can to control publication and distribution. Now they must tackle
possession because it's all that's left. While they know they can't
prevent distribution and possession (aside from the deterrent effect
of law which you've already mentioned), they would very much like to
lock people up to express society's "abhorrence" at their use of this
material. Ultimately, they are not claiming that it serves any
practical purpose other than to make "moral" society feel good about
itself and separate itself from the undesirable elements within it.
You are right that the argument that this material causes harm is
weak. But the government acknowleges that too, while floating it
publicly in a tacit way. The aim of this campaign needs to be that
laws _should_ be enacted on the basis of evidence of harm, not public
distaste or prejudice, however widespread.
That is what's pernicious about this proposal. It's a trojan horse for
the "abhorrence" principle. The child porn laws were argued on the
basis of harm reduction, whatever you think about the strength of
those arguments. This is a whole different matter, but if they get
away with it, slippery slope, any activity could be fair game for
prohibition, not just possession of certain kinds of images.
backdooruk, 08 Sep 2005 10:52:50
Clare wrote:
> I'm not so sure that enforcement unworkability is going to be such a big problem.
I don't think it's going to be any problem at all actually. If I did I wouldn’t be nearly so concerned about the legislation.
Experience with the equivalent prosecutions involving images of children has shown us pretty much how this will work. The police don’t find any difficulties finding computers to search through, either by reports from trades people or through things like operation Ore. Most of the people prosecuted through Ore did not even download images of children from the sites there were alleged to – they had simply downloaded pictures of adults from other websites using the same billing system. But it gave the police excuses to look at their PC’s and anyone with any image that might be taken as a category one image of a child - which is basically a nude, or semi nude in an ‘erotic’ pose (‘erotic’ seems to mean practically any nude BTW) - was prosecuted. Most pleaded guilty to avoid a custodial sentence.
It doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to think of more excuses the police might use to search people’s computers. Perhaps people posting on innocent BDSM websites about actual practices might find themselves subject to a raid for example.
- Chris
clare, 08 Sep 2005 10:56:41
Well quite. So "unworkable" shouldn't appear on our petition or objections.
Author wrote:
> Clare wrote:
> > I'm not so sure that enforcement unworkability is going to be such a big problem.
> I don't think it's going to be any problem at all actually. If I did I wouldn’t be nearly so concerned about the legislation.
> Experience with the equivalent prosecutions involving images of children has shown us pretty much how this will work. The police don’t find any difficulties finding computers to search through, either by reports from trades people or through things like operation Ore. Most of the people prosecuted through Ore did not even download images of children from the sites there were alleged to – they had simply downloaded pictures of adults from other websites using the same billing system. But it gave the police excuses to look at their PC’s and anyone with any image that might be taken as a category one image of a child - which is basically a nude, or semi nude in an ‘erotic’ pose (‘erotic’ seems to mean practically any nude BTW) - was prosecuted. Most pleaded guilty to avoid a custodial sentence.
> It doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to think of more excuses the police might use to search people’s computers. Perhaps people posting on innocent BDSM websites about actual practices might find themselves subject to a raid for example.
> - Chris
>
>
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 10:57:43
I guess what I meant to do was alert poeple affected by any law that this will be a further burden on already stretched resources....
backdooruk, 08 Sep 2005 11:05:57
Clare wrote:
> * the punishment of the accused does not remove the image from the public domain. It does not have ANY effect on the ability of other adults or children to access the offending image or have any impact whatsoever on the continuing production and publication of similar images.
The government has a very strong counter argument: That fear of prosecution will limit *individual* use. The crime of possession of drugs, for example, is not really targeted at removing drugs from the streets, but rather at frightening users. To reply to this we’d have to be able to argue convincingly that such deterrents do not work.
Unfortunately our very strength of objection to the legislation could be taken as support for the POV that it will make some people too afraid to access these images.
- Chris
backdooruk, 08 Sep 2005 11:14:04
Clare wrote:
> Well quite. So "unworkable" shouldn't appear on our petition
Perhaps, perhaps not. The police and CPS might have no problem with getting prosecutions, but that doesn't mean that these are the 'right' prosecutions. We also have to be pragmatic: we can raise all possible objections even if we don't personally think they'll be a problem. It's a case of throwing everything at them we can!
- Chris
clare, 08 Sep 2005 11:15:16
> The main issue is "abhorrence". Para 11: "The underlying premise of
> this document is that this material should have no place in our
> society." They've spelled it out quite clearly. Everything else is
> just window dressing.
Well yes, but the purpose of the window dressing is to give the proposal an air of legitimacy. If they simply proposed locking up people who use abhorrent material without suggesting it might have some useful benefit for society they wouldn't get very far.
So surely we attack the window dressing.
We can't attack the "abhorrence" itself. The material is probably is abhorrent to the majority.
The aim of this campaign needs to be that
> laws _should_ be enacted on the basis of evidence of harm, not public
> distaste or prejudice, however widespread.
But the argument about evidence of harm (criminal or moral) is premised on the idea that the source of harm will be removed by the legislation. And it won't be.
That fact is undisputable and, as you say, accepted by the government. This makes it their central weakness.
The argument about harm is "arguable" at least in prejudiced minds. That makes it a much weaker position. You are then forced to array inconclusive research papers against prejudiced minds.
Graham Marsden, 08 Sep 2005 11:33:36
Lothario wrote:
> That is what's pernicious about this proposal. It's a trojan horse for
> the "abhorrence" principle. The child porn laws were argued on the
> basis of harm reduction, whatever you think about the strength of
> those arguments. This is a whole different matter, but if they get
> away with it, slippery slope, any activity could be fair game for
> prohibition, not just possession of certain kinds of images.
I agree with this entirely.
There have been enough problems with "liable to corrupt and deprave" and
other similarly wooly and imprecise phrases, this "abhorrence"
expression makes any decision based entirely on subjective grounds.
I'm sure (hell I know!) there are some who consider the contents of my
catalogue to be at the very least "objectionable" and I'm also certain
that with very little prompting they could agree that "it has no place
in society", despite the fact that I've got several thousand customers
who think differently.
This is a principle we need to fight on the "Nanny State/ Thought
Police" basis, ie we are being *told* what is or isn't good for us,
rather than, as responsible adults, being able to make up our own minds.
As always "If you don't like it, don't look at it", but don't let it be
used as a scape-goat to excuse or explain events like the Jane Longhurst
murder, nor should the rest of us be told what we can or can't see
because of the actions of one deranged individual.
clare, 08 Sep 2005 11:56:20
> The government has a very strong counter argument: That fear of prosecution will limit *individual* use. The crime of possession of drugs, for example, is not really targeted at removing drugs from the streets, but rather at frightening users. To reply to this we’d have to be able to argue convincingly that such deterrents do not work.
This is why the European Convention on Human Rights is relevant and central. Fear of prosecution for possession of information is not a legitimate justification for a restriction since possession of itself does not harm society's morals or health.
Look at the Scherer v Switerland case in my legal document posted.
I don't think we have to show that such deterrents don't work. That presupposes that there is some purpose to the deterrent, if it were to work.
>
clare, 08 Sep 2005 12:00:24
The Times article says that the proposals are to go hand in hand with blocking access to the sites and giving Ofcom a role as internet policeman.
Does anyone know anything about this?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1757558,00.html
Lothario, 08 Sep 2005 12:13:43
> The Times article says that the proposals are to go hand in hand with blocking access to the sites and giving Ofcom a role as internet policeman.
>
> Does anyone know anything about this?
Those are the demands of the Jane Longhurst petition. They don't form
part of the government consultation.
Paul Tavener, 08 Sep 2005 20:23:01
Author wrote:
> --- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> Emailing the images would count under current
> interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act, as
> publication (at least, as I understood the explanation
> of already existing legislation in the consultation
> paper).
> I suspect that, since it would obviously be a
> campaign, it would be argued (and possibly
> successfully) that we knew what we were doing when we
> were sending them.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
The OPA has a number of defences for scientific / artistic / other issues. I would have thought that part of a political campaign or requests for information would not be targeted by the authorities. If they were it would probably be to our advantage.
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com