The Guardian: 14 July 2006 A study in sexual violence
adrian, 18 Jul 2006 09:59:35
Yes, that response, from Martin Barker and another on this new panel,
plus the fact that he has collaborated with Prof Julian Petley who
also opposed the doc, shows that they'll be 'on our side'.
I'm not knocking it, but in some ways I'd be happier if the panel and
its views were a little more mixed, as maybe the Williams report one
was. Providing that is that they come down on our side at the end!
This seems like an important piece of work, that I have no doubt is at
least partly intended to counter the HO proposals. Yes of course, we
should officially make ourselves known to them. They should each have
a hard copy of DVVM's critique sent to them.
adrian, 18 Jul 2006 10:37:30
Looking further I see that the questionnaire seems entirely related to
these half-dozen films which are generally available. Of course the
BBFC is only concerned with this type of film. There is a danger that
the report will explicitly or implicitly be seen to justify these but
not actual porn. It will certainly be used in this way if it can be.
It would be a great help to us if the report was to include something
which clearly showed that the ostensible intention, or the intended
marketplace, had no influence on its potential for violence. That
might not be what the BBFC wants but I hope it may be something the
learned panel will want to sneak in.
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 18 Jul 2006 11:10:47 ***
demolitionred, 18 Jul 2006 11:17:33
Report abuse
Here's a direct link to the consultation response from cyber-rights.org. It's the second thing listed on the main page. Just in case link wasn't clear enough.
http://www.cyber-rights.org/cyber-rights.org_response.pdf
It is signed off by two law lecturers, so might be worth pursuing them.