Amendments rejected
We are aware the Government was invited to consider alternative proposals
that would have targeted only material involving abused and non-consenting
participants, while excluding material featuring consenting participants in
staged and otherwise non-abusive productions.
This seemed to reflect ordinary,
commonsense principles - why target situations where everyone consents and no
one is abused ?
Indeed, most of the problems with the Government's proposal stem
from concentrating on "what is depicted in the material", instead of the real
issue of what happens to participants during production.
This turns existing
practice on its head: extremely violent horror films featuring consenting
actors are commonly passed for release; but a non-violent film whose actors were
coerced and abused into participating would surely be banned.
The Government rejected the alternative proposals on the ground that it would be
difficult for prosecutors to prove actual abuse or lack of consent.
Instead, it decided it would simply criminalise non-abusive
productions featuring consenting participants too.
Shooting the Messenger
The internet is a convenient scapegoat for society's ills.
The UK government is to legislate how best to imprison potentially many people for viewing content on the internet.
How should governments regulate the details of our personal lives and control individual expression ?
Preserve Individual Freedoms
Backlash campaigns to ensure the right remedies are applied to the right problems.
Whilst doing so we preserve hard won individual rights and liberties.
See no evil.
The government doesn't want you to view certain images. And will send you to prison if you possess them. Even in the privacy of your own home.