GagWatch

The BBC reports that the UK government is consulting on whether to seek new laws make it illegal to possess or access extreme internet pornography.

The aim is for a new offence of possessing violent and abusive pornography, which could be punishable by up to three years in prison, Home Officer Minister Paul Goggins told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

It’s a proposal that raises a lot more questions than it resolves. So here goes.

Mr Goggins said such images were “extremely offensive to the vast majority” and had no place in society.

So the first question, of course, must be to ask whether offensiveness is a good reason to ban something. While few people will are keen to defend the free speech of pornographers, and even fewer people are willing to support extreme pornography, it needs to be borne in mind that such a ban sets a precedent that can be extended to all hard porn, soft porn, erotica, titillation, art and beyond.

And the second question is to ask what exactly is “extreme pornography.” It may sound like a trivial question but, if you are going to ban something then you need to be absolutely clear as top what you are banning and why. So we need a definition.

Should such a definition comprise a list of specific acts - potentially covering images shown outside of a pornographic context - or will it simply ban everything from, for example, Japan.

A Home Office spokeswoman added the proposed law included deliberately viewing such images which meant “effectively downloading” the information on to the computer.

The new laws would not affect people who came into contact with pornographic material by accident.

So viewing images online is okay, but downloading them is a crime. How big a bus can you drive through that loophole?

“These forms of violent and abusive pornography go far beyond what we allow to be shown in films or even sold in licensed sex shops in the UK, so they should not be available online either.”

Britain already has some of the most restrictive pornography laws in the West - and they don’t seem to be making much, if any, difference. None of the various pro-censorship campaigners has managed to demonstrate a link between violent images and violent acts so the assumption that there is some benefit in banning these things simply doesn’t hold water.

Extending the reach of a counterproductive law may appeal to a politician’s desire for easy answers, but it’s not a solution.

Mr Goggins told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We do feel it necessary to provide some form of protection for the public, particularly for young children increasingly accessing the internet.

“It is very important that we protect them from accessing these kinds of extreme pornographic images.

Which is an emotional appeal wheeled out by someone who knows that his arguments aren’t going to stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

How, exactly, is an unenforceable law going to protect these mythical credit-card wielding children as they hunt for extreme porn? And why should the state be encouraging parents to abdicate their responsibility to protect their own kids?

If we really wanted to ensure children’s’ safety, surely it is better to educate them as to what sort of activity is and isn’t safe - online and anywhere else. Giving certain parts of the net the cachet that comes with forbiddenness isn’t going to anyone any favours.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post