My opinion
Laughing Dan, 08 Sep 2005 11:35:25
The main problem with the legislation is that it makes it a crime to photograph perfectly lawful events that take place, even if you only keep it for your own historical record - your home photo album will be censored.
If a married couple enjoy rough sex in the privacy of their own bedroom, and decide one day to photograph or video themselves for their own private album, then the proposed law theatens them with up to three years in jail and a reputation ruined by being placed on the sex offenders' register.
In a more public example, some of the scenes performed quite legally at S/M play parties for public viewing, would become illegal to record under the proposed legislation.
Since when has it become reasonable to outlaw the keeping of private historical records of lawful events and performances, even where no publication takes place?
The answer is, unfortunately, since child-protection hysteria went beyond child protection and included faked child porn as an offence. This was the thin end of the wedge that is now being driven further in to corpse of free speech.
Since there is no hope of objectivity with respect to faked vs real child porn, it is very difficult to see where another boundary may be found that can serve to check the path of the wedge.
In my view the government should be required to establish a compelling interest in preventing the recording of otherwise lawful events and the keeping of such records for private purposes.
The proposal does not in any way establish a compelling interest. The hyperbolic phrase "such images have no place in out society" falls far short of that standard and sounds more like a "would like to have" moralistic interference.
The proposal actually admits to not having any evidence of actual harm! How can you have a compelling interest without evidence of harm? Particulary if the images are ones you took youself? Maybe even depicting yourself or your partner?
I also noted on reading the proposal that the reason why the child protection act includes fakes is that it is not always possible to determine the age of the actors, for example with images from abroad.
This seems to ignore the possibility of the actors' consent being possible to establish (eg yourself). Note that recent regulations in the US require all adult images to have documented the age and consent of the actors.
Why can this proposal not include a clause to omit images where the actor's consent can be established?
Note that all of the above refers only to the proposed offence of possession, not publication. It it well established that a less stringent test can be applied to acts of publication - the 'public morals' clause of the human rights act, for example.
I also have difficulty with the separation of violence from non-consent. For me violence and non-consensial force are one and the same. If that is not the case, your surgeon is doing knife-wielding violence to you despite the consent forms you signed before that life-saving operation.
I also have difficulty with the distinction between sexual and non-sexual violence in this context. Since the act is predicated on a highly prejudicial view of what constitues 'normal people' vs 'perverted monsters', and seeks to outlaw the prurient tastes of the 'perverted monsters', all bets are off as to what is sexual. These deviant perverts might find *anything* sexual! Hence surely the act must apply to *all* violent imagery.
Hope this helps,
- Dan