Several years back, I wrote about the UK’s plan to block all pornography by default and, before that, mentioned their past treatment of BDSM activities. I can now say something positive about the UK as they have recently declared that several sexual acts, particularly BDSM related, are no longer classed as obscenity. This is a great step forward which resolves some oddities in UK law where certain sexual acts were fully legal to perform but illegal to show in pornography. It’s especially good as we should not be classing activities as illegal if they have no victim. It’s absurd to suggest that a legal activity becomes illegal once on film. Continue reading
I made a passing reference the to the UK’s new plan to block all porn but I decided that it, and obscenity in general, required a more thorough examination. In short, David Cameron feels that UK internet service providers need to block all porn by default to protect children. In short, again, that idea is stupid. It’s stupid partially because it will not work and partially because the mindset behind it is one that should not be accepted. Continue reading
Sometimes I just find the world incredibly disappointing. A Norwegian woman went to the police in Dubai to report being raped and instead found herself arrested for extramarital sex! She was later pardoned by the Sheik but the very fact that that can even happen is ridiculous. It’s not the 17th century but you could be forgiven for thinking so.
Then I hear the UK wants internet service providers to block porn by default. Naturally this is “for the children.” Of course I highly doubt there’s any evidence that it will improve children’s lives or that he’s taken into account the uncertainty that lurks in these situations. There better be very strong evidence to enact such a thing because the government has no business telling people what they can and can’t look at. This system should be opt-in only, unless maybe in the UK every single household and person has kids.
As if privacy weren’t muddied enough it seems retailers think it’s good to stomp all over it so they can track people and recognise celebrities. No. You shouldn’t be tracking people. Their defence is that it’s the same as what’s done on-line. That may be but that doesn’t mean it’s right. In this case they’re just copying a bad example.
This last one is not as bad as the others but a difference in what I think we are meant to achieve through justice system. Nazi hunters are putting up posters looking for information to convict those involved in the holocaust. The problem is that was 70 years ago and the people involved even older. Of course if your idea of justice is just to punish people then it makes sense to convict them. A more constructive form of justice would seek to rehabilitate and prevent recurrence of past events. The chances these people are going to repeat their crimes is infinitesimal so convicting them will serve no purpose.
In what I consider a wildly misguided attempt to improve gender equality, the EU is preparing to vote on banning all forms of pornography. Rick Falkvinge has described the vote as a deceptively named (Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU) bill that was “really about tearing down the most fundamental of our rights and liberties.”
While gender equality is a noble cause this is not an ideal way to go about achieving it and would have terrible consequences for our freedom of expression. Whether one believes pornography has intrinsic value or not, should be protected for those that wish to partake in it. I’m not saying that it’s never sexist or stereotyping but rather that it is not that by definition nor does all pornography involve gender stereotyping. As an article from today in the Telegraph points out some of the problems with the thoughts underpinning this vote but a number of them should be obvious. Continue reading