I've seen the 'extreme' pornography law in the UK be misinterpreted a couple of times; a few people have thought that by supporting the law they are also protecting children.
What I'm not grasping is how people are failing to understand that children are protected with other laws. I have quoted the 'extreme' porn law and I've looked at some of the debates (at length!), but, for anyone passing through, I'll quote it again and refer you to the great big long post about what the law entails.
Really, do people honestly think that because there is no mention of children in this law that that means children aren't protected? See the Protection of Children Act 1978, and also Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
So that's the practical bit done. Now the theoretical, which is what Heart refers to. She argues that by arguing in favour of pornography on the basis of freedom of speech, one leaves the gate open for child pornography apologists.
Well, firstly that is a pretty disgusting thing to say. But somehow not surprising. I think there's a definite line in debate and accusing the other side of being in favour of abusing children, Heart has rather done a hop, skip and a jump over it. Why? Well, it's pretty simple. First, a quote from Heart:
Regulating adult pornography, therefore, is a different matter to regulating child pornography. The assertion that arguing for pornography as freedom of speech is opening a floodgate in which child pornography could be excused is ridiculous.
It's true that when writing about pornography, one ought to distinguish between adult and child. However, I would think it is fair to assume that when writers such as myself or Renegade Evolution argue against laws regulating pornography, we are not discussing child pornography. Quite obviously (to most) that is a different matter.
What I'm not grasping is how people are failing to understand that children are protected with other laws. I have quoted the 'extreme' porn law and I've looked at some of the debates (at length!), but, for anyone passing through, I'll quote it again and refer you to the great big long post about what the law entails.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill Part 6: Criminal Law, "Pornography etc."
Part 6CRIMINAL LAWPornography etc.
64 Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.
(3) An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image appears to have been so produced is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.
(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.
(7) In this section “image” means—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).
(8) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).
(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
Really, do people honestly think that because there is no mention of children in this law that that means children aren't protected? See the Protection of Children Act 1978, and also Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
**********************************
So that's the practical bit done. Now the theoretical, which is what Heart refers to. She argues that by arguing in favour of pornography on the basis of freedom of speech, one leaves the gate open for child pornography apologists.
Well, firstly that is a pretty disgusting thing to say. But somehow not surprising. I think there's a definite line in debate and accusing the other side of being in favour of abusing children, Heart has rather done a hop, skip and a jump over it. Why? Well, it's pretty simple. First, a quote from Heart:
In fact, where pornography is protected as someone’s freedom of speech, child pornographers will use it, make it, traffic in it, and thrive. The pro-porn side, whether they admit it or not, has so far seemed to view the proliferation of child pornography and pornographers as some sort of unfortunate collateral damage in their (un)holy war to preserve this particular type of ”free speech” (read: the unfettered right and entitlement to whack off to as many depictions of violated bodies as possible).This based on the logic that women, like children, are unable to consent. Women, adults, are theoretically able to consent, their mind as a fully functioning adult human being has the capacity to say yes or no. It is true that some women, many women even, have not consented, however, in this case, the law assumes that women can and do, thus if the actress has not consented then the allegations would be rape, sexual assault and false imprisonment (one would assume). The implication that women would be better protected under child law is alarming; women are adults and ought to be treated as such. Affording women the same legal status as children is an incredible step backwards.
Regulating adult pornography, therefore, is a different matter to regulating child pornography. The assertion that arguing for pornography as freedom of speech is opening a floodgate in which child pornography could be excused is ridiculous.
It's true that when writing about pornography, one ought to distinguish between adult and child. However, I would think it is fair to assume that when writers such as myself or Renegade Evolution argue against laws regulating pornography, we are not discussing child pornography. Quite obviously (to most) that is a different matter.
