Thread

The case for action now?

deno, 16 May 2006 13:52:35

Hi Mick

Thanks a lot! The problem was that posts were either long delayed or
gobbled up by the system, if you can call it that. Several others have mentioned
the same with their posts having similar treatment so I repeated in the hope
of my research appearing eventually.

Thought there was a chance that if there are further meetings with HO we
could engage a solicitor to explain to them that proposed legislation will not
have the desired effect of stopping crimes like Longhurst.

We could quote their own expert Prof Itzin who has written in one of her
articles that censorship is not the answer. Also we can point out the obvious
that the psycho will not heed any legislation as past cases were not detered
by life imprisonment or even the death penalty. No doubt a lawyer could make
a compelling case which they might take notice of.

Feel that this is the critical path, take action now, as once the bill is
published it will very likely pass as few, if any, MP's support us. Possibly
there is an outside chance we could get it scrapped or watered down to have
little effect on our interests.

Of course age does diminish one but also has the great advantage of
observing politics,etc
over many years and noticing that events follow a usual pattern giving rise
to predictability.

However maybe you are dropping me hints that nobody is interested in my
views anyway.
If so please let me know.

deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Teddy, 17 May 2006 01:49:17

Hi Deno,

This sounds like a good idea, in principle, but it might rely on finding somebody sympathetic to the campaign to act "pro bono", as there are only (apparently) very limited funds for this! The legal case against this legislation is probably very strong, in the context of the ECHR.

With regards to the situation with MPs, we are faced with an uphill task, as it is far more convenient for politicians to be seen throwing their weight behind such moral panics, without a detailed consideration of the issues. There are some MPs with more balanced views, but even the original legislation proposal (in all it's extremity) would most likely pass with little difficulty. Who knows what amendments may or may not follow in the meantime...

I don't believe at all that this reflects wider public opinion; in fact, I detect mostly public apathy on the subject. Most of the internet forums and "reader's letters" boards in the press show a concensus against the legislation: if only this body of opinion could be mobilised! IF the HO choose to let the people see what the true spectrum of opinion is by publishing the responses, this might be of some help in raising the profile of our campaign. We do not have prominent sponsors or political mouthpieces in the same way that the JLT does. It is a David v Goliath situation in many regards...

T.

Author wrote:
> Hi Mick
> Thanks a lot! The problem was that posts were either long delayed or
> gobbled up by the system, if you can call it that. Several others have mentioned
> the same with their posts having similar treatment so I repeated in the hope
> of my research appearing eventually.
> Thought there was a chance that if there are further meetings with HO we
> could engage a solicitor to explain to them that proposed legislation will not
> have the desired effect of stopping crimes like Longhurst.
> We could quote their own expert Prof Itzin who has written in one of her
> articles that censorship is not the answer. Also we can point out the obvious
> that the psycho will not heed any legislation as past cases were not detered
> by life imprisonment or even the death penalty. No doubt a lawyer could make
> a compelling case which they might take notice of.
> Feel that this is the critical path, take action now, as once the bill is
> published it will very likely pass as few, if any, MP's support us. Possibly
> there is an outside chance we could get it scrapped or watered down to have
> little effect on our interests.
> Of course age does diminish one but also has the great advantage of
> observing politics,etc
> over many years and noticing that events follow a usual pattern giving rise
> to predictability.
> However maybe you are dropping me hints that nobody is interested in my
> views anyway.
> If so please let me know.
> deno

deno, 17 May 2006 17:12:58

In a message dated 17/05/2006 01:45:20 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:

Hi Deno,

This sounds like a good idea, in principle, but it might rely on finding
somebody sympathetic to the campaign to act "pro bono", as there are only
(apparently) very limited funds for this! The legal case against this legislation
is probably very strong, in the context of the ECHR.

With regards to the situation with MPs, we are faced with an uphill task, as
it is far more convenient for politicians to be seen throwing their weight
behind such moral panics, without a detailed consideration of the issues.
There are some MPs with more balanced views, but even the original legislation
proposal (in all it's extremity) would most likely pass with little difficulty.
Who knows what amendments may or may not follow in the meantime...

I don't believe at all that this reflects wider public opinion; in fact, I
detect mostly public apathy on the subject. Most of the internet forums and
"reader's letters" boards in the press show a concensus against the
legislation: if only this body of opinion could be mobilised! IF the HO choose to let
the people see what the true spectrum of opinion is by publishing the
responses, this might be of some help in raising the profile of our campaign. We do
not have prominent sponsors or political mouthpieces in the same way that the
JLT does. It is a David v Goliath situation in many regards...

T.

Hi Teddy,

Thanks. Good analogy David and Goliath,. but remember who won and the
decisiveness of one well aimed shot.

We might have a chance of some prominent supporters, lawyers, psychologists,
sociologists, etc., after the bill is published if it is a complete "dogs
breakfast" and obviously unworkable.
Myself, I live in the sticks and the only posters I know are Mick H and
Devil Rob Maybe some of our supporters down south could cavass support if
thought appropriate later.

deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 27 May 2006 11:33:09

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 27 May 2006 11:33:09

deno, 31 May 2006 11:36:43

In a message dated 30/05/2006 07:53:54 GMT Standard Time,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:

articles that censorship is not the answer.
deno

No, nononononono! We don't want to quote Itzin because she is a fucking
madwoman who hates pornogaphy, sex and freedom of expression. She says that
censorship "is not the answer" she proposes, instead, that *anyone* who
feels they have been 'harmed' by pornography has the right to sue the
producers/models/distributors/shopkeepers who sell it.
She's of the headbanging-mad anti-porn tribe who claim to oppose censorship
- by which they mean that THEY can say anything they like but people who
disagree with them shout be shouted down, have their funding removed or be
pysically assaulted... but that's not censorship, of course.

And, even though she is , like, Not One Of US (original description hastily
edited out), it's not only unethical but it's not clever to quote someone
entirely out of context, without understanding the context of the original
quote.>
Note your explanation of her motives and my impression was similar in that
it seemed she favoured action against the producers who in our case would be
the webmasters.

However for whatever reason, it does seem she would be against the proposed
legislation and I quoted her in the full context of her article where she did
not elaborate on what her alternative to censorship would be. It is so
difficult to make a point or continue a thread
when our posts are often delayed and/or mangled.

Although not much information has been posted about the talks of those who
represent us and the HO one gets the impression that the main influence in our
favour was Counsel's Opinion regarding our Human Rights.

It seems obvious to me that if we can follow this up with evidence that
other top professionals
are critical or against the new law it is just possible that HO in their
present state of chaos might shelve the ill considered proposals.

deno posted 30th May

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

SnowdropExplodes, 31 May 2006 19:28:27

"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 31 May 2006 19:28:27

We could quote their own expert Prof Itzin who has written in one of her
articles that censorship is not the answer.
deno

No, nononononono! We don't want to quote Itzin because she is a fucking
madwoman who hates pornogaphy, sex and freedom of expression. She says that
censorship "is not the answer" she proposes, instead, that *anyone* who
feels they have been 'harmed' by pornography has the right to sue the
producers/models/distributors/shopkeepers who sell it.
She's of the headbanging-mad anti-porn tribe who claim to oppose censorship
- by which they mean that THEY can say anything they like but people who
disagree with them shout be shouted down, have their funding removed or be
pysically assaulted... but that's not censorship, of course.

And, even though she is , like, Not One Of US (original description hastily
edited out), it's not only unethical but it's not clever to quote someone
entirely out of context, without understanding the context of the original
quote.
That's the same proposal as Catherine MacKinnon makes.

I disagree with you that it is unethical and not clever. If the opposition concedes a point - in this case, that current censorship laws are not going to work, and are based on outmoded, male-defined views of obscenity - then we should seize on that and exploit it to our own advantage.

The argument that "those who have been harmed should be able to sue everyone involved in production and distribution of the material should be able to sue" requires a huge leap, and understanding that leap is key to undermining and destroying the argument.

To construct a case for a lawsuit for harm having been caused by pornography, if harm can be demonstrated and shown to be a direct effect of the pornography, ought to be possible under current laws, with no need to change anything. If harm cannot be demonstrated, then there should be no case to answer. The leap being made is to make pornography a special case, where harm may be assumed and need not be proven in a court of law. As has already been noted, there is no conclusive evidence of harm, so a case under current law should fail. Therefore what is proposed is nothing less than an assumption of guilt (or liability, I suppose, in civil law) before the case has been heard.

Incidentally, when I first read the proposal, I wondered if other women, who felt that they were harmed by being denied access to pornography, should be able to counter-sue the original plaintiff(s). A rather facetious thought, admittedly, but it entertained me.

A further leap is made in talking about "harm" with no explanation of what is meant by harm. Is it physical harm, and if so, to what degree, and caused how? Is it mental or emotional harm, and if so, caused how? Would the same tests be applied to all forms of media, regardless of genre? If the causal link is supposed to be a man incited by pornography to violence against women, should we then also be able to sue Hollywood producers etc for injuries caused by gunshot wounds (since surely all those gun-toting heroes are incitement to gun use), or sue Jackie Chan for injuries caused in a fight (since surely he'd be an incitement to violence)? I consider that a fair reductio ad absurdum approach to their proposal.

It is entirely ethical and intellectually honest to quote the statement with which we agree, and then to comment that we disagree with the rest of their contention, and if challenged, explain why we disagree. If both sides of the feminist debate on pornography accept that obscenity laws (such as the OPA or any proposed extention of OPA-like laws) are neither effective nor desirable, then it should not be a problem for us to point that out.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

---------------------------------
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)