The Choice is Yours permalink
BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Edward Smith (U3265762) on ,
Two recent BBC R4 items on this subject (on WH and "Today") have made no attempt to present a balanced or representative account of this controversial legislation to criminalise the possession of certain forms of adult pornography, i.e staged violent or "extreme" material. This in spite of 2/3rd of the responses to the recent public consultation being against this new law, a sentiment reflected in many previous BBC discussion boards, and the government having actually ADMITTED that there is no proof of harm caused by this material. There is no justification whatsoever in a free society for imprisoning people for looking at fictional images, no matter how unpleasant some people find them.
I would like to see future BBC articles offer alternative viewpoints to the highly tendentious pro-legislative opinions of the Home Office and police. What do others on here think?Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 2
Posted by mark (U5498600) on ,
I've yet to listen to the Today programme, but I agree, I was very disappointed in the coverage on Woman's Hour.
I accept that in a programme there will be viewpoints I disagree with, but I would expect that the BBC should at least be trying to show a balanced point of view, rather than biased pieces that only allow those in favour of the laws to speak!
The BBC News team were willing to do this (see www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... ); it's a shame if certain programmes on Radio 4 are not willing to respond to feedback.Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 3
Posted by Mukkinese (U7881612) on ,
Today have fallen for the Government line on this and swallowed it whole.
No one would oppose a law banning images of real sexual violence (downloading such images would be an incitement to commit a crime), but it hasn't occured to Today to ask, why people are opposing this law.
It is a con, hiding behind the wording "extreme violent porn". What is even more galling is the lack of any real research on the subject. Watch a video, supplied by the police, and skim the Government proposal and that will pass as journalism by the Today programs standards.
Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 4
Posted by virtuouscalmone (U8391183) on ,
yes, the BBC definitely need to do some research... I've made an official complaint...
it's just plain bad journalism to only have the supporters of one side presenting their case, without the chance of an informed opponent to contest their views... if the BBC believe their presenters can fulfill that role, then fine, let them research the issue and challenge the people on air...
but this was just sicophancy... operating on such a level, the BBC becomes little more than a propaganda tool for proposed govrenment legislation...
it isn't as though there wasn't plenty of real hefty material for some investigative journalist to get his teeth into...
why are the BBFC going to be exempt from this law? what is the actual cost of this law (no estimated figure published)? how many possible prisoners is this going to create (no estimated figure published)?
why are several academics (among them professors of law) vehemently opposing this legislation?
how about an interview with Rabinder Singh, the QC (and deputy high court judge) who submitted detailed legal argument against this legislation during the consultation process?
how do the champions of this legislation justify the discrepancy between their proclaimed cause for action being a tiny proportion of the material (real abuse), yet their law will affect the great mass of avalaible material (consensually produced)?
these are just a few avenues... there are plenty more for some real journalist to dig for some real truths...
so how about it, BBC ? why not try to make up for the shambles of 'World at One', 'Woman's Hour' and 'Today' by actually researching this matter in some depth?
Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 5
Posted by moralpanix (U7925318) on ,
I can only add my voice to those here. I know others cannot believe the piece wasn't deliberately biased. I'm prepared to believe that a journalist might believe that there could only be one side to the story, but only before they did their research, not after. The 'The Editors' blog already linked above was excellent in showing how BBC News, earlier when there was more excuse, made the same assumptions, and heard by e-mail and text that many didn't agree. Look at the comments the public added to that blog; 14 of the 194 supported the law, nearly all the rest were clearly against it. In every online press article which accepted public comments, the same sort of ratio was seen.
Even if these posters had no cogent arguments, their sheer numbers should not have been ignored. But they do have arguments. They raise questions which any decent journalist should have asked. There are many to choose, but the ones I'd have asked are:
If as the Government suggests, this material is overwhelmingly a record of male abuse of women, who do women form a substantial proportion of those protesting this law?
The Goverment and the police still claim that many examples of what would be made illegal involve actual serious abuse. That there are countless videos and images which record and publish a serious crime in great detail. These would constitute an enormous body of evidence to check against reports of abduction and assault. The police in many countries should have hundreds of real examples, real names, real prosecutions for these assaults. Why do the police never cite any real instance?
If a news editor can admit they were wrong before, surely one might try to find some real SM porn models and producers, some of the real people (yes, even women) who view it, some of the researchers who believe that such a law would if anything increase sex crimes. If the Today programme thinks the police can speak on sexual matters for the entire nation, the BBC has some work to do if it wants to regain the respect of a significant section of society.Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 6
Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on ,
msg 4 why are the BBFC going to be exempt from this law? virtuouscalmone, at a guess, its because they are the classifiers. They need this material in their possession in order to classify/reject it for general release. Their possession is 'legitimate'. Bit like the police who hold seized images.
Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 7
Posted by fairy hedgehog (U1485678) on ,
< staged violent or "extreme" material >
I'm sorry, this is just sick. Why does anyone *want* to see pretend violence and "extreme" material? Yuck yuck yuck.
fhLink to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 8
Posted by virtuouscalmone (U8391183) on ,
OJO,
you seeem to misunderstand...
when I speak of BBFC exemption, I mean all BBFC classified material will be exempt... this suggests that some currently BBFC classified material would breach the 'extreme' pornography law (or the DPA (Dangerous Pictures Act) as it has become widely known as by now)...
else what is the point of this exemption?
the BBFC insited on this exemption... and the government has granted it... this raises serious questions...
if the government is telling the truth that the law would only affect a tiny number of extreme internet porn publications, why is it necessary to protect the back catalogue of BBFC licensed material from its reach?
neither the BBFC, nor the government wish to answer this...
this would be something for the BBC to investigate, if it wished to do something other than just invite supporters of the legislation onto the airwaves...
if the material really is so damaging as the government insists why allow the continued legal sale of such material jsut because it has previously been passed by the BBFC?
we either need protecting from it, or we don't, no?
and it either affects only the most 'extreme' material or it affects films passed by the BBFC for distribution...
somewhere in there, there are some serious contradictions... these should be put to government... it should be backed up with interviews with the BBFC, film producers, etc, etc... the kind of thing proper research provides...
for example, what has Mark Kermode to say? he's even 'in house', no? he's known to be a outspoken opponent of the censorship and banning of horror films... horror is just one of the areas which may in fact be affected by this legislation, if any scenes involve anything sexual...
anyhow, this post is getting long...
but I think you can see now that there are indeed some problems with the exemption of BBFC licensed material... the exemption seems to suggest that all cannot be as the government assures us on this matter...
why doesn't the BBC try to find out?
Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 9
Posted by moralpanix (U7925318) on ,
fairy hedgehog wrote:
"I'm sorry, this is just sick. Why does anyone *want* to see pretend violence and "extreme" material? Yuck yuck yuck."
Fairy hedgehog, for a surprising variety of reasons. Many find them cathartic. Why are identical scenes made in Hollywood now currently taking significant amounts of cash?
Let me say that the answer is NOT because they wish to do those violent things in real life. Fantasy is for the the things you wouldn't do in real life. It can overstep reason and normality precisely because it is fantasy. Most psychologists recognise the importance of fantasy and the danger of trying to ban it.
It's no doubt pretty normal for you to go 'yuck'. It's pretty normal, it's certainly very common, for people to have extreme fantasies. I know I could find evidence of both sickness and health in either camp.Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 10
Posted by mark (U5498600) on ,
fairy hedgehog:
Firstly - have you seen such material? What sort of material do you have in mind? (Just so we can be clear what we're talking about here.)
Secondly, have a read of en.wikipedia.org/wik... .
If you want to know why I enjoy consensual S&M, including depictions of such "extreme" fantasy material, I'll be happy to explain. I am a submissive, and what I fantasise about does not mean I wish actual non-consensual acts to happen in real life, instead it is always with consensual adults. Just because someone thinks it's "sick" is not a reason to have me thrown in prison for three years, or classed as a Sex Offender.
Also, this law would apply to entirely private images of people's own sex life - whether other people would think those images sick or not shouldn't matter as they should never see such images, but consenting adults would still be committing a criminal offence under the new laws...Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 11
Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on ,
msg 8 when I speak of BBFC exemption, I mean all BBFC classified material will be exempt... this suggests that some currently BBFC classified material would breach the 'extreme' pornography law (or the DPA (Dangerous Pictures Act) as it has become widely known as by now)...
else what is the point of this exemption? virtuouscalmone, Ah, obviously I thought you meant that the BBFC would be exempt from prosecution for having such material in its possession while waiting to classify it. I would suggest that such an exemption would avoid the situation where a person buys what they consider to be a perfectly legal 18-film yet gets done for breaching this act because of a brutal rape scene (Irreversible, Baisme Moi) within the material. The BBFC are already bound by legal guidelines as to what it can pass, so it may just be a 'courtesy' so people know where they are when buying some of the more graphic but legal film. Obviously that's a guess though, I don't know the official reason, but I think such an exemption would make sense for such buying-public confidence reasons.Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 12
Posted by Mukkinese (U7881612) on ,
OJO
The Exception in this law is not for the BBFC, it is for material certified by the BBFC.
This is a clear admission by the Government that it's definitions are likely to capture images that the BBFC thinks are acceptable and therefore harmless.
What you should be asking is; why is the Government prosecuting the ownership of images it admits are harmless?
How is someone who owns images, similar to BBFC certified images, to know if they are breaking the law or not?
Why is the Goverment pushing so hard, for a law that will lock up people for up to three years and put them on the sex offenders register, with all the stigma that carries, for a 'crime' for which the Goverment can show no evidence of harm?Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 13
Posted by virtuouscalmone (U8391183) on ,
Regarding Fairy Hedgehog's response...
No-one will make you watch it... it's for those who choose to do so...
but I'd like to point out one thing... something that at times seems to surprise people...
Law is not about right and wrong. Period.
It is there to regulate and to bring order...
is adultery wrong? Yes... is it punishable by law? no... in fact, those countries who punish such offences we tend to see as backward theocracies with atrocious human rights records...
so, please, when thinking of law, consider it more like the Highway Code... we need to follow rules so that we don't all kill each other out there... so you drive on the left and go when it's green and stop when it's red...
not because it's righteous or virtuous, but because it's necessary....
this really is the essence of law... order and necessity...
principles of justice and personal morality are very different things...
so we do not punish moral wrongs per se... just because something is 'yucky' or 'disgusting', to quote Fairy Hedgehog, it is not really an offence for law...
there needs to be the presence of some serious grievance - there needs to be harm...
seeing consenting people do 'disgusting' things with or to each other in pictures or on video is not such a grievance - and there is no harm...
so the government are acting on their own personal morality, backed by minority groups whose real agenda is censorhip of all 'adult' material (for example John Beyer's Mediawatch who are being very, very supportive)...
therein lies the primary reason for opposition... this law is not being proposed on grounds of true necessity, but due to someeone's personal morality... this makes it arbitrary, or plain bad law...
Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 14
Posted by Mukkinese (U7881612) on ,
Just because some find this material offensive, does not mean others must be locked up for looking at it.
Since when did we put people in prison for matters of taste?
The whole problem with this law is that it bypasses the need for the Government, the police or the prosecution to show any harm of any kind in order to secure a conviction. In fact it is worded in such a way that even if the defendant could prove no harm was done (something many could do in this situation), the jury would be forced to convict anyway.
Prosecution and conviction for a sex offence is a horrendous ordeal, for both the defendant and their family. Such cases tear lives apart, traumatise children and stigmatise families for years. Many people have committed suicide under such pressure.
All this for a 'crime' for which the Government can show no evidence of harm.
Given recent reports about the police being 'forced' to bring stupid, petty prosecutions in order to meet targets, they must be salivating at the thought of such a law coming in.Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 15
Posted by Graham Marsden (U1971096) on ,
Fairy Hedgehog:
> Why does anyone *want* to see pretend violence and "extreme" material?
Ask all the people who have watched the "Saw" series of films.
Personally, whilst I have no problem with so-called "Extreme and violent pornography" which features *consenting adults* I wouldn't watch those films because the victims are clearly not consenting.
There again, why does anyone want to watch the scenes of abuse, marital strife, threats, violence, intimidation and so on which, as I understand it, feature regularly in East Enders??
Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 16
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 17
Posted by Graham Marsden (U1971096) on ,
Here are some of the points raised by the Today programme which I take issue with:
It first started by trotting out the Government's Spin that "Extreme and Violent Pornography (EVP) is illegal to distribute under the Obscene Publications Act (OPA)"
This, however, is not true. For it to be illegal it first requires a test by a court that article *is* obscene. This claim by the Government is prejudicial to the actions of an independant judiciary.
The piece stated that "This is often not a victimless crime", but offered absolutely no evidence to back this claim up. I run a business making Leather Bondage Gear and, naturally, keep in touch with the law on this subject, but I have never heard of a case of anyone being prosecuted for, let alone convicted of, a crime involving an adult video and non-consenting participants.
It also said that "EVP is clearly lucrative market for some criminals" and made references to "money laundering" but this is also more than a little prejudicial because it implies that anyone involved is probably a crook, whereas they may well be (and most probably are) consenting adults.
Another comment by the programme was that "bizarrely possession of cgi images of child abuse is not an offence". What exactly does that have to do with EVP? The proposed laws are intended to deal with acts showing adults, not children. This comment has no relevance except as a "smear tactic", something which the Home Office's Consultation on the subject repeatedly attempted by making irrelevant references to child porn.
The programme then went on to say that "possession is a way of tackling that accessibility" but this is utter nonsense. Did the laws against possession of child porn stop Gary Glitter from amassing his collection? And how is this going to be enforced? For that matter, how is someone going to know if what they have is illegal or not until it goes to court because there is no clear definition of what is EVP.
Related to this, there is also the fact that, despite the Government's claims (for instance in their response to my petition objecting to these laws, see www.number-10.gov.uk... ) that any decisions made as to what is EVP are going to be based on entirely *subjective* opinions, it just requires that the viewer believe that the material "appears to risk serious or life threatening injury", even if it is posed by consenting actors! That is hardly the basis for a sensible law.
The programme did make a brief stab at objectivity when it said "The Government says that there is no known causative link" but it then immediately followed this with the words "others differ" But who? What evidence do they have? Are there peer reviewed papers or just dodgy research and anecdotal "evidence"?
There have been many claims about the "link" between pornography and rape etc, but these have *never* been shown to hold up under proper scrutiny, whereas there is a lot of credible research showing that, in fact, access to pornography may reduce sexual offences. See www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/... for more information.
There was no attempt made by the programme to give an "on the other hand" viewpoint, nobody pointed out that these proposals would effectively create a Thought Crime by implying that anyone who looked at EVP was liable to commit acts of violence.
All in all this was an incredibly one-sided and biased piece of reporting and not the sort of thing that the BBC should indulge in, especially when even a minimal amount of research would have shown that there is a great deal of objection to these proposed laws.Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 18
Posted by DarkAngel182 (U7890779) on ,
I do find it odd that the police say its already an offense to distribute "extreme pornography" as the Obscene Publication Act makes absoloutely no mention of pornography, only material that is "liable to deprave or corrupt" and juries rarely agree on what that constitutes. Should this issue not have been taken up with them during the interview?
They say this is not a "victimless crime", but if these were both consenting adults just engaging in some bizarre extreme sexual activites and this stuff is perfectly legal in its country of origin, then there is no victim and no crime surely?
Bizarre as it may sound some people genuinely do enjoy engaging in this stuff. For the record, I'm not a fan of this material, but I respect peoples rights to view any staged/consensual material in the privacy of their own home. However, any law outlawing possesion of images would mean that consenting activities that are legal to perform, or stage, will suddenly become illegal in image form.
I do find it somewhat troubling that the police now wish to persecute people who view pictures of these activities simply because they find the content shocking or offensive. Perhaps the next time the BBC mentions laws on extreme pornography, they should look at why this material is permitted in virtually every other European country if it allegedly really is so abusive?Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 19
Posted by moralpanix (U7925318) on ,
Fairy hedgehog, I can understand your reaction, but I think it must be based at least partly on some widely held assumptions, ones which are central to the justification for this law. Amongst them are that an interest in the material indicates a wish to do those things in real life, and a belief that this would be acceptable. The penalty, three years in jail, shows that that the Government thinks that looking is virtually tantamount to doing.
Here's a comment from the old The Editors item mentioned above:
-------------
I am a priest. When this legislation was proposed one of my congregation told me that she finds herself erotically excited by fantasies of being murdered, and has downloaded film clips which excite her.
She has no desire for the reality portrayed but neither she nor I have any idea whether this proposed Act would criminalize her behaviour or not. This worries both of us, particularly since after many years as a priest I would be extremely surprised if she were unique.
She is by the way a grandmother and a prominent public figure whose life of service could be
destroyed very easily.
-------------
This case may not be the sort of example that sprang to your mind but it's becoming clear that this is not hugely untypical.
Would you, as a member as a jury, be happy if you were forced to find her guilty? If you found the content extreme and the film's purpose erotic, you would be offered no alternative verdict. She would then face up to three years in jail. Would you think this was necessary or just?
I don't want to imply that this might be justified in many other cases, but to show a glaring example of the sort of injustice that would arise from this law.Link to this forum: BBC coverage of "extreme pornography" legislation
-
Message 20
Posted by virtuouscalmone (U8391183) on ,
ok, so here goes another attempt at posting what was blocked (because I used a Latin legal phrase used in European human rights law.(!))
msg11 - OJO,
you seem to say that people may be confused what they are allowed to buy or view... hence the BBFC exemption... however, if such confusion exists about this kind of material, how are people to know how other material - not related to BBFC - is ok to view?
you see, the exemption seems to confirm that one cannot tell the difference between legal and illegal...
the end result is what lawyers call a 'chilling effect'... people are deterred from viewing things they are perfectly entitled to view because they cannot be sure if it is legal or not...
this is one of the very arguments the opposition has been making from the start... where is the clearly defined line between the legal and the illegal?
in fact leaving people in the dark like that but threatening them with punishment if they offend is deemed to be against the European Charter of Human Rights (Article 7)... it dates back to the very origins of law, the Roman principle 'no punishment without (clear) law' (translated from Latin in previous post as otherwise gets banned)...
that is of course if the exemption was granted to the BBFC for the reasons we are both guessing at, OJO... but given that neither of them feel inclined to tell us, we'll never know... don't you feel that unwillingness to reveal their reasons is a little sinister?
and OJO, legal exemption isn't granted as a 'courtesy'... it is made due to pressing legal argument... argument pressing enough to change the government's mind who initially had not invisaged any such exemption...
so here's the rub, OJO, do you think this is a subject worth the BBC doing a bit of digging on? perhaps an interview or two with BBFC and government people? don't you think that would be much more informative than just lining up supporters of the legislation (Jim Gamble, for God's sake!) and then letting them do their thing unopposed?
now which of the two options would be proper journalism?
About this Board
This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is reactively moderated.
Find out more about this board's House Rules