"Expert" contributions to the issues
This page collates contributions by those with some claim to "expertise" in the field of how pornography causes harm, the legal issues surrounding censorship, or some other "professional" knowledge to impart.
Mere participation or opposition to "scene" activities does not confer expertise in this context, and their contributions will be found on the "citizens" page.
Expertise is not to be confused with omniscience. Astute readers will observe that value judgements abound.
The preeminent expert group is psychologists. Unfortunately the response by the main British society seems to have been hijacked in this particular consultation, so backlash is also giving space to psychologists who are recognised experts in the field and who were not consulted.
The responses of the BBC and
Channel 4, which will also have a considerable impact on any outcome, have been obtained.
As the body liaising with the Home Office about restrictions on internet service providers, the Internet Watch Foundation will probably have an influence on the outcome.
The views of the British Board of Film Classification carry weight with the authorities, as they have to assess pornography daily.
On the civil liberties front, Liberty is the main civil society concerned with freedom from censorship. They list policy documents published by them in 2005 among which is their response to the Home Office (120k pdf).
An ex-employee of the Home Office, Laurence Pay sets the context in Sex, Pornography and Censorship.
The opinion of a leading human rights QC, Rabinder Singh, commissioned by backlash groups,
on the specific proposals contained in the consultation document, is sufficiently important to be included in the navigation panel on each page.
A extreme case in favour of censorship can be seen in the Lilith position, put forward by the Women's National Commission (WNC) acting as the Government's independent advisory body on women's issues. Their uncompromising comments misunderstand much of what the consultation is about but can be summed up where they say "Lilith would like to see the UK government acting to protect women by defining all pornography as harmful to women and thus restricting all content which depicts women in sexually degrading imagery".
Other contributions we have identified include
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 ?
Prime Minister conflicted
.... there are areas in which the State, or the
community, no longer has a role or, if it does have
one, it is a role that is completely different. It is
not for the State to tell people that they cannot
choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to
do with sexuality.
Tony Blair 5th Sept 2006