Countering prudo-fascism
John Beyer, the smut campaigner of Mediawatch-UK, wants to imprison people who look at pornography. He has a petition on the Downing Street e-petition site which has gathered over 200 sigs in the past couple of days:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to steadfastly proceed with plans announced in the Queen’s Speech to make possession of extreme pornography illegal and to include a much wider range of pornographic imagery, such as R18 material, within the scope of the Criminal Justice Bill.
The extreme pornography law will make it illegal for adults to look at pictures of consenting adults pretending to hurt each other. It is a knee-jerk law, with no basis in research, which will criminalise a large section of the population.
Whatever you think of violent pornography, this law is stupid, unnecessary, and dangerous. To counterbalance Beyer and his prudo-fascists, please sign this petition (if you are a British citizen):
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abandon plans to make it a criminal offence to possess ‘violent pornography’
This proposed law would create a Thought Crime making it illegal to possess “sexual images” that, in the subjective opinion of members of the Home Office, show activities “liable to cause serious injury or death” even if the participants were consenting adult actors.
For more information and links, see The Melon Farmers.
The proposed law was largely in reaction to campaign by the mother of a woman who died at the hands of Graham Coutts. His conviction for murder was quashed on 19 October this year.
I would urge anyone with a concern about the possibility of slippery slope censorship, to sign this petition. This isn’t just about violent porn. It is about how far the government should go, in dictating what visual material freeborn people may keep in their houses. As far as I am concerned the only justification for restriction from possession, is pornographic material featuring children under 16 and restrictions regarding possession should STOP RIGHT THERE. There are arguments about what may, and maynot be legitimately sold, and where they might be sold. But this petition is NOT about that. It is about what material one may freely keep in ones own house, without risking getting put in prison for up to THREE YEARS. It may be your son, daughter or grandchild.
Please tell them this is a step too far.
I should have written near the end:
It may be your son, daughter or grandchild who is banged up for three years, because they had such material on their computers.
Please don’t let it happen to them!
Wouldn’t a ban on R18 material basically mean it would be illegal for partners to film themselves having sex in private? And I worry what else they have in mind with “wider range of pornographic imagery”.
If this law is passed, it will set the precedent that images of consensual adult acts can be criminalised. Groups like Mediawatch will continue to campaign for the law to be extended to cover wider ranges of material.
the people in favour of this want to spread the illegality net far wider than this present proposal…. several respondants to the proposal wanted ALL porn included… possession of ALL violent imagery banned… and Kent Police want to extend the proposal to WRITTEN pornography….we are indeed on a long and slippery slope! Sign the petition against this appalling lurch toward thought-crime……better still contact your MP and tell him/her that this proposal is a step too far for the nanny state and that it may even contravene your human rights. The only place this can really be stopped is in parliament… make it damn clear to the person who represents you how you want them to vote!
If this law were passed, and followed to its logical conclusion, the streets would be empty: virtually everyone except SG would be in the slammer!
I used to at least respect the position of John Beyer, and his beliefs and would engage in discussion with him. But now, his position of wanting to put ME in prison if I choose to own some R18 material, which is depections of physical acts which are themselves PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO, now for me, puts him almost beyond contempt.
I wish him no harm. But I don’t really think he could honestly say the same about me, could he given that he would happily see me thrown into prison, for the way I MIGHT choose to live, which is not shown to be harmful in any secular sense.