By Dan Ilett, 30 August 2005 14:30
NEWS The government is seeking to outlaw the possession of violent pornography obtained over the internet.
The Home Office and the Scottish Executive are today consulting over what changes in the law are necessary to prevent people downloading images of sexual abuse.
The current law (the Obscene Publications Act 1959) prevents the distribution of images of sexual abuse in the UK but does not apply to foreign websites or other international distribution channels. This means that possession of such material has yet to be outlawed.
Paul Goggins, parliamentary under secretary of state, said in a statement: "We are proposing to strengthen the criminal law in respect of possession of a limited category of extreme material featuring adults. The intention is to reduce the demand for such material and to send a clear message that it has no place in our society."
The government defines "extreme pornography" as material that is abusive and features illegal activities such as realistic depictions of violence, bestiality or necrophilia. It has said the government wants to break the demand and supply cycle for such material by making it illegal to own.
A spokesman for the Home Office added: "At the moment it is illegal to publish it but not to possess it. This would crack down on possessing it in the UK. [The consultation] will be to look at the scope of enforcement."
The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is backing the move.
Peter Robbins, CEO for the IWF, said: "The IWF will actively contribute in the consultation phase to achieve clarity in the new laws and to ensure appropriate partnerships are in place for the content that fails the test to be removed and where possible the individuals responsible investigated."
Comments
There are 9 comments. Join the discussion
1. James Button
You can hide pictures in pdf, htm and doc files as micro-dots, or behind other 'stuff', or even mixed in with another picture, where the colour mode, or resolution selected controls what is seen.
So:--
Which Chief Constable or MP is going to be the first to be targetted with documents containing pictures imbedded in documents on their work or family's PC.
Looks as if we are all going back to text terminal emulation for our online work, or face prosecution for having naughties in our IE temporary storage and email.
2. David Gaskill
This is the nanny state gone absolutely mad.
Just one example: most days you can find "realistic depictions of violence" on the CNN website so obviously I shall not be able to look at this or many other news websites.
What business is it of the Government what pictures I look at? It may be 11 years late but it looks like George Orwell's thought police have finally arrived...
David Gaskill
Hong Kong
3. Tim Jackson
I'd love to see how this is going to work. How do you prove that access was with perverted intent and not accidental? After all you cannot definitely know the content of an image until AFTER you have downloaded it.
There really has to be a second level of evidence, such as paying for the service.
If I open at a web image described as "cute fluffy kittens" and it turns out to actually be an illegal image, will I have commited a crime? If I delete it immediately but it is still somewhere on my hard drive accessible to forensics, do I have a defence?
I can see this could be a useful tool for blackmail or for sting operations.
4. Roger Darlington
Yes, you will have such a defence. Accidental exposure to such material will not be an offence. It would be for a jury to decide in the light of all the evidence whether viewing was accidental or deliberate, but the police would have no reason to bring frivolous cases that would be thrown out by the courts.
5. Roger Darlington
You are over-reacting, David. The Government's consultation paper makes it clear that the offence will not cover news reporting or documentaries. It will be designed to catch material which depicts violent imagery which is clearly in a sexual context.
Incidentally, "1984" was not intended as a precise historical prediction but simply a vision of an excessively intrusive state at any time. Orwell just took the year the book was written (1948) and reversed the last two figures.
6. Bill Ellson
Abu Ghraib photos will be illegal.
David Gaskill's comment nails the proposed law. The consultation document, which does not appear to have been read by journalists, suggests that posession of any image or depiction of 'Serious Violence in a sexual context' will become an offence.
The next Abu Ghraib will not be reported in the UK. Handy, given UK proposals to deport dissidents to country that practice torture.
7. anonymous
I have nothing for or against porno,some of it is ,sick,sick,sick,But if adult human beings wish to watch this garbage that is up to them. Keep BIG BROTHER out of it.
8. anonymous
And there was me wondering what was next on the list to ban...
9. anonymous
This is another example of bad law compounded to make worse law. The golden 'corupt and deprive' used to decide whether something is an 'obscene publication' has always been subjective dependant on which judge/jury was looking at it, and their emotional state at the time. Images of a willing participant (and there are a LOT of willing 'models') being thrashed or tortured is a totally different issue in my mind (and I believe the whole of society) to an unwilling one.
Copyright law meant that you could reasonably expect a publisher to know the origins of the material, images on your PC are not in the same game.
Now if that media has been paid for then fine, but I think what the police are missing is that distasteful though it may be, there are clubs in London, where one can go and be tied up, thrashed, electrocuted or other acts of BDSM. If I attended one of these and had someone photograph myself engaged in one of these acts, I could be arrested for having photographs of myself doing something perfectly legal.
It strikes me as nonsense that any legal activity could be illegal to photograph and store in a private place. Remember it is only recently that the image of an erect phalus has been deemed not likely to 'corrupt and deprave'. Had this law been introduced 10 years ago, this would effectively make it illegal to photograph one's self in any (quite legal) sexual acts.
No the reality is this is another tool to be used by the police to target people specifically, rather than to police the nation, and that is bad law.