Arguments in favour
From Seenoevil
[edit]
Government justifications
- The material encourages violent behaviour. - Not supported by the evidence, according to the Government's own consultation paper.
- The legislation will break the cycle of supply and demand. - Falsely assumes demand is created by supply, and that cutting off supply in the UK will affect material hosted abroad.
- People who feature in the material need to be protected. - People who feature in consenting non-abusive productions don't need protection. Productions that coerce/abuse participants are already illegal everywhere - so the law already protects them.
- Society needs to be protected from exposure to the material. - Not clear what society need protecting from. Seems to come down to the danger of encountering something distasteful.
- Children need to be protected from exposure to the material. - Argument used here selectively. Other things children shouldn't see are much easier to obtain (e.g. mainstream pornography or certificate 18 films), so why not ban them too?
- Most people would find the material abhorrent. - Once again, this comes down to taste. Free societies do not criminalise people on grounds of taste.
[edit]
Government claims
- Most respondents to the consultation supported the proposal. - False, according to the Government's own report.
- The legislation will affect only a small number of people. - No, it will affect hundreds of thousands, engaged in non-abusive, consenting activities.
- The material encourages violent behaviour. - Not supported by the evidence, according to the Government's own consultation paper.
- The material features genuine abuse of non-consenting participants. - Almost certainly false, and implausible given the evidence.
- The proposal is simply an update of the Obscene Publications Act (OPA). - Very misleading: (a) an OPA conviction is much harder to secure, requiring the jury to believe that the material would "deprave and corrupt" those likely to see it; (b) this criminalises simple possession of an image, rather than publication, which is far more intrusive. The Government rejected a proposed amendment to restrict the law to images illegal under the OPA. Furthermore, classified films have had to be given a special exemption to avoid them falling under the definitions of the law (even though they clearly are legal to publish), yet at the same time, extracts from classified films can be illegal under the law.
[edit]
