Why we do not need the Extreme Pornography laws

Back in 2008, we at Affordable Leather Products were part of the Backlash Campaign when the then UK Labour government passed the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act which, amongst its other provisions, included laws against so-called Extreme Pornography, making it illegal simply to possess picture which are defined as:

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,
(c) 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 a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person
or animal was real.

This law was passed following the death of Jane Longhurst whose lover, Graham Coutts, had been interested in erotic asphyxia and had looked at websites featuring this practice before her death. Her mother, Elizabeth Longhurst, along with their MP Martin Salter started a campaign to have this material banned since they believed that it had contributed to her death, despite the fact that research, such as that by Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai’i has shown that actually the availability of such pornography correlates with a decrease in violent sexual offences.

The Adam Smith Institute (ASI) claims that these laws are a “blunt tool” which can be used to incriminate thousands of innocent people, particularly gay men, and are actually used to enforce “moral values” which do not represent the “real sexual desires and practices” of Britons.

[bctt tweet=”Extreme Porn laws are a “blunt tool” used to incriminate innocent people, particularly gay men”]

Their report argues that current Obscene Publication laws need to be re-written, starting with the Extreme Pornography legislation which has, for example, been used to prosecute Andrew Holland who received a joke video clip of a man in a tiger suit having sex with a woman and then turning to the camera and saying “That’s Grrreat!” Because the Police and CPS had not had the sound turned on, they’d not heard the “punchline” and took Mr Holland to court.

Mr Holland’s was subsequently acquitted when the clip was played in court with the sound on and it was determiend that it was a joke and not pornographic, despite the fact that it should never have even got to court since, as the law quoted above says “a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real”.

Unfortunately this has not stopped this regrettable situation from having a devastating effect on Mr Holland’s career and life.

This law is, of course, completely unenforceable *except* retroactively, there is nothing to stop anyone from downloading all sorts of so-called extreme pornography (which is perfectly legal in most of the rest of the world), but it can be used as a “consolation prize” by the Police since, if they arrest someone for a crime, seize their phone and computers, find nothing to do with the original cause of arrest, but subsequently find extreme material, they can then use that to charge the suspect with.

Not only that, but it can also be used by vengeful spouses or ex-partners in divorce proceedings or custody cases where accusations can be made of a partner having looked at or possessing such material in the hope that it will help tip the balance towards the person making the accusation.

[bctt tweet=”Extreme Porn Laws can be used by vengeful spouses or ex-partners in divorces or custody cases”]

The extreme pornography legislation has the bizarre effect of criminalising photographs of consensual and entirely legal acts and it even makes taking a video clip or still image from a BBFC classified film an offence if it is deemed that that was done “for sexual arousal”, so an image which is legal as part of a film can be illegal on its own!

[bctt tweet=”The Extreme Porn laws mean an image which is legal as part of a film can be illegal on its own!”]

This law was supposed to have been introduced to protect women, however as Nick Cowen, the author of the paper, said: “The extreme porn ban criminalises depictions of sex acts even if they are safely performed by consenting adults. We have seen the law used, in particular, to target and expose gay men.

[bctt tweet=”Extreme porn laws criminalise images of sex acts even if safely performed by consenting adults”]

“Each such case represents a personal tragedy and a disgraceful use of our criminal justice system’s scarce resources. The costs of the law are disproportionate to any public benefit, and as implemented cannot plausibly protect women’s interests for which the ban was supposedly introduced.”

These laws were ill-advised, poorly thought out and do nothing to serve the purpose which they were intended for and we at Affordable Leather Products agree that they should be stricken from the statute books as soon as possible.

Do you also disagree with the Extreme Pornography Laws?

Do you agree that Governments should not criminalise depictions of consenting adults engaged in consensual activities?

Are they just trying to suppress the behaviour of people doing things that the puritanical members of the government don’t like?

If the evidence shows that such images actually correlate with a reduction in sexual violence, is the government putting people in more danger by trying to restrict their access to such material?

Tell us what you think in the comments below.