Adult channels to be outlawed

I would suggest that Baroness Benjamin's amendments do not widen the scope. At first glance, replacing 'pornographic' with 'adult content' might widen the scope significantly however, applying the 'harmful and offensive' test as per the Comms Act requires PROOF of harm for it to be enforced by the courts. As I've pointed out many times before, R18 is available for people to buy and take into their homes where young children might see it BECAUSE in 2000 the High Court ruled that "based on the available evidence a reasonable person would conclude that the risk to children from viewing adult sexual material is insignificant". Clearly, as far as the legal precedents are concerned, R18-type adult content is neither harmful nor offensive and is thus not considered obscene (i.e. "likely to corrupt and deprave").

The Government should be consulting with child sexual development specialists because as far as I'm aware great HARM is done to the normal development of children by denying them access to sexual knowledge and experiences and poisoning their minds with ideas like "porn is harmful" and "sex is dirty, disgusting and obscene". ALL studies show that children from sexually repressive backgrounds are more likely to develop deviant sexualities (e.g. paedophillia) later in life than those children from sexually open societies. The Government are doing the WRONG THING FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

Sex is such a fundamental part of life itself that it is utterly impossible that the sight or sound of people having sex could "seriously impair the normal development of a minor". There is absolutely no evolutionary advantage in producing a creature that could be harmed by the knowledge, sight or sound of its own means of reproduction. There is no likelihood whatsoever that R18-type pornographic images might seriously impair the normal development of a child. Indeed, to develop into a healthy, rational, sexually mature adult, it is blatantly obvious that a growing child needs access to sexual knowledge and experiences. Moreover, only by routine exposure to sexually explicit material can the 'shock', 'disgust' and so-called 'offence' experienced by some immature, child-like, repressed 'adults' be overcome and a more reasoned and rational - i.e. NORMAL - reaction to images of sex and nudity be arrived at.

Through decades of totally unnecessary censorship (as confirmed by the High Court in 2000), the people of this nation have been FORCED into a state of pornographic hypersensitivity. None of the supposed 'harmful effects' of pornography have been witnessed in any of the sexually open, porn-accepting States around the world. Sex is a normal and necessary part of life. Sexual stimulation is thus a normal and necessary part of life. Pornography and sexually stimulating items have been a part of human existence for tens of thousands of years.

Masturbation is a normal and healthy way to relieve sexual tension amongst children and adults alike. Porn is simply a sex aid to masturbation and relief from sexual tension and thus a means for people to take control of their inherant sexual needs. Porn makes for SAFER, SEXUALLY MATURE, REASONABLE and RATIONAL societies - the benefits of porn clearly outweigh any and all unproven, indeed, disproven moralising concerns against it.

this law wont be introduce has it would mean the italian government destorying pompeii has every wall has some form of "pornographic" or "sexual" imagary on it.

They probably won't be enacted as law, though they could slip through and be passed unnoticed. Stranger things have happened. What is worrying is that they are being given houseroom and even got this far. Censorship goes in phases and the current universal support for free speech unless it crosses some line might not be the case in future. In the 1960s theatres were allowd more freedom than now but it chipped away.

(31-03-2013 01:53 )eccles Wrote:  They probably won't be enacted as law, though they could slip through and be passed unnoticed. Stranger things have happened. What is worrying is that they are being given houseroom and even got this far. Censorship goes in phases and the current universal support for free speech unless it crosses some line might not be the case in future. In the 1960s theatres were allowd more freedom than now but it chipped away.

I remember when naked theatre was easy to get away with, not so much at all, and that wasn't that long ago, in theatre terms.

(30-03-2013 21:03 )bigguy01 Wrote:  this law wont be introduce has it would mean the italian government destorying pompeii has every wall has some form of "pornographic" or "sexual" imagary on it.

If there was ever a law some like Pompeii couldn't be touched due to it's World Heritage Status, and they couldn't make anyone get rid of anything in any form that was made before the law came in. There ever being a law, in the current way people think, is very unlikely.

My Granddad fought in a war so I could watch porn! (Well not specifically but in a roundabout way)

(30-03-2013 21:03 )bigguy01 Wrote:  this law wont be introduce has it would mean the italian government destorying pompeii has every wall has some form of "pornographic" or "sexual" imagary on it.

The proposed law said pornographic images in the media. Pompeii isn't 'media' so it wouldn't have been affected.

(17-03-2013 11:09 )munch1917 Wrote:  The other issue which we've barely touched upon in this discussion is what actually constitutes 'porn'.
It is my understanding that in Iceland porn has been banned for sometime, but the term is not actually defined, so the law cannot be properly enforced and hence porn mags and movies have continued to be freely available. The recent moves there against porn are more an attempt to clarify what porn is so the law can be enforced.

So who decides what is and isn't 'porn'? Will art galleries be raided and closed down for displaying nude paintings and statues? Will bookshops and even libraries be closed for daring to stock 'pornographic' literature like 50 Shades, or even Mills and Boon? What about hospitals and doctors surgeries that display graphic medical posters of the human body, will they fall foul?
It may sound silly, but we have been here before, Lady Chatterleys Lover is a famous case in english history, and I can recall in my lifetime, bookshops being raided for selling the works of Jean Genet with it's often graphic homosexual content.

'Porn' is already defined under UK law. Section 63 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Following the Longhurst Campaign the government decided to act to criminalise the possession of an image of extreme pornography. An image being a still or moving image. An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63

Part of the section refers to

An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— .
(a)an act which threatens a person's life, .
(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, .
©an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or .
(d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and i remember last year the Met Police intervening over the display of Leda and the Swan at a West End Art studio.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/fe...84646.html

even though they had received no complaints from the public. So munch1917 art galleries have already been targeted.

Going off topic, the BBFC are consulting on their classification procedures with the consultation closing in around 10 days. Make your voice heard if you disagree with the R18 classification and it's restricted availability to licensed sex shops.
Should we have a standardised classification regime throughout europe.
My response was on these lines Too wide a range of classifications. Disagree with R18 rating as all adult content (violence, nudity, sex) should be rated 18 and therefore readily available to all persons 18 and over. Should not be restricted to licensed sex shops only as this disadvantages those people who do not live near such premises, not able to travel due to disability nor have a cradit card to download from a video on demand web site. The number of licensed sex shops are decreasing due to the cost of running/setting them up and also many local authorities have a policy presumption NOT to issue such licenses further restricting access.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classificatio...eview-2013

Have your say.