Extreme pornography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Extreme Pornography is a term introduced by the UK Government to refer to pornography depicting acts of serious violence, necrophilia or bestiality. Serious violence is defined as that which "appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury". The term covers "actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts", which is intended "to catch material which either is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm". As a specific technical term, it appears to have been introduced in England following the death of Jane Longhurst in 2003 caused by Graham Coutts who was obsessed with such depictions downloaded from web sites dedicated to such content.
Contents |
[edit] History
In 2005, the British government consulted on criminalising the possession of such images, following a campaign led by Jane Longhurst's mother and sister. A 50,000 signature petition was submitted to the government demanding a ban of "extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification". On 30 August 2006, the government published the results of the consultation and announced its intention to introduce a possession ban on all extreme pornography as soon as the legislative timetable allows. Opinions on the proposals were sharply divided in the consultation, with 63% of responses rejecting the need for regulation of Extreme Pornography on the Internet. The proposed maximum penalty for possession is three years imprisonment.
[edit] Arguments
A number of key issues need to be addressed particularly with regard to precise definition of what is to become unlawful. It is clear that Extreme Pornography includes not only images where extreme violence is taking place, but also images where people are simply role playing such violence. Material is considered Extreme Pornography only if the main purpose of creating it was produce sexual arousal. This rules out most mainstream films, documentaries, war footage or instructional videos, regardless of content. Textual material or cartoon depictions are also excluded regardless of theme or detail.
The main purpose of criminalising possession seems to be the claim that it would reduce the likelihood of people copying the behaviour depicted. The consultation acknowledged that there was no research evidence that this effect would be achieved. Instead, the consultation suggested a causal link between exposure to such material and behavior, based on evidence at the murder trial of the man who killed Jane Longhurst (see section 10 of the consultation document). Although practising erotic asphyxia for five years before exposure to such material, the exposure was claimed to be the cause. In spite of anecdotal evidence suggesting that viewing Extreme Pornography is commonplace among those engaging in extreme sexual practices, the presence of Extreme Pornography was still claimed to be a highly significant factor in triggering the man to commit what otherwise would be a motiveless murder.
Another of the claimed benefits of the ban is that it will help protect people forced against their will to perform illegal acts in the creation of such material. In particular, it will help protect women from gang rape, mutilation or bestiality by reducing the potential to profit from making such content. The consultation document did not attempt to estimate the magnitude of this problem, citing no evidence whatsoever that such content is being distributed at all. Furthermore, the law would cover images whether or not the participants consented, and whether or not actual violence was involved.
Proponents of the ban state that criminalising possession will reduce the risk of accidental exposure to such material, particularly by children. No evidence of accidental exposure or its impact was cited in the consultation. Given the relative rarety of the material in question, it is likely that the vast majority of accidental exposure to serious violence and pornography will be to forms other than Extreme Pornography.
No cost-benefit analysis has been attempted by the government to support a ban on possession of Extreme Pornographic images. The cost has been estimated to be minimal, based on the unsubstantiated claim that such material is exceptionally rare. If the prevalance of the material is comparable to that of child pornography, the cost may turn out to be comparable too, casting doubt on the government's de minimis costing. The benefit can only be estimated once the relationship between exposure to the material and criminal behaviour has been determined. In addition, the reduction in trafficking of victims into the production of commercial non-consensual extreme pornography as a result of criminalising possession of all extreme pornography is unknown.
[edit] Organisations
Backlash launched a campaign in 2005 to challenge the joint UK Home Office and Scottish Executive proposals to criminalise simple possession of material.
The Jane Longhurst Trust is a Charitable company which seeks to make the Internet safer and raise awareness of the harmful effects of Extreme Pornography.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Jane Longhurst Trust "In Cyberspace no-one hears the children crying ...start listening NOW"
- Backlash opposes these changes.
- Summary of responses to the Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material
- wiki collating information and arguments about the proposed law
- Point by point response to the consultation paper by Institute of Ideas Policy Watch
- New steps to extend police powers to punish porn users
- This is a petition against the proposals. Another petition has been set up by mediawatch-uk to not only ask the UK government to make these proposals possible as soon as possible, but also to criminalise possession of a much wider category of pornography.
