Another Government attack on porn

[Jacques]

As reported over at Melonfarmers:

Brian Iddon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Obscene Publications Act 1959 applies to internet websites offering pornographic material, with particular reference to child protection on the internet; and if he will make a statement.

Vernon Coaker: The Obscene Publications Act 1959 applies to all published material whether on the Internet or offline. Material is published if it is circulated, distributed, sold, given, lent or offered to another person. It will be deemed to be obscene if the court finds that its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear it.

The Criminal Law Subgroup of the Home Secretary?s Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet has considered the implications of a judgement in the Court of Appeal (R v. Perrin [2002] EWCA crim 747) which indicated that where children are likely to access material of a degree of sexual explicitness equivalent to what is available to those aged 18 and above in a licensed sex shop, that material may be considered to be obscene and subject to prosecution. This applies to material which is not behind a suitable payment barrier or other accepted means of age verification, for example, material on the front page of pornography websites and non-commercial, user-generated material which is likely to be accessed by children and meets the threshold.

[andy at handiwork]

They just cant let it lie, can they?

[neoXaur]

They have no clue, nor care, what they'd do if they ever did this.
For example, imagine how many people out there daily get themselves of viewing something which is legal but maybe not to all tastes, bondage etc.

If these people couldn't live out their fantasies in comfort of their own homes they'd re-enact them, not necessarily with someone who consents either.

I'd bet a lot of cash that sex crimes have dropped (allowing for percentage population growth) since hc became legal here. Not that it'll ever likely go away.

[andy at handiwork]

Whereas when it comes to not bowing to EU pressure to implement silly legislation we get this sensible comment from Ofcom / Home Office. If this is unworkable, when will they wake up to how stupid is the proposed 'extreme porn' bollocks. Note especially '...and believes that internet users should be left to police themselves.'

'TV Without Frontiers, the European media regulation directive, had wanted national governments to be responsible for regulating such sites as YouTube and MySpace. Ofcom, backed by the government, argues that this plan was unworkable, and believes that internet users should be left to police themselves. Ofcom will regulate ?TV-like? services, but not video clip and social networking sites.

Today?s outcome is testament to the substantial progress we have made in persuading our European partners to take our arguments on board

said creative industries minister, Shaun Woodward'

From

[Jacques]

Keith Rasputin wrote:

> thankfully the courts can't ignore European law in
> the UK.

Except the ECHR Case Law of Groppera Radio AG and Others vs Switzerland 10890/84 [1990] ECHR 7 (28 March 1990)

If you really want to read it;

But basically the ECHR have decreed that to impose censorship of any legally available material by way of a broadcast licensing system is illegal. This means that R18 which is legally available material, given the fact you can go out and buy it, can in fact be legally broadcast. Ofcom have absolutely no legal precedent nor any kind of remit to rewrite or reinterpret any law covering broadcast in the UK. And UK law dictates that any decisions made by Ofcom must comply with the Human Rights Act and all case law decissions of the ECHR.

So what have Ofcom and the DCMS been doing for the last 16 years?

[Jacques]

Keith Rasputin wrote:

> thankfully the courts can't ignore European law in
> the UK.

In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, "Television Without Frontiers" or TVWF.

Let's have a look at it:

2.1 The TVWF Directive has two main objectives

a) to protect fundamental public interest objectives in terms of TV content and programming

b) the free movement of TV broadcasting within the EU

2.2 To achieve these aims, TVWF sets minimum standards on the rules members states must impose on TV services which they authorise. ... including protection of minors...

2.3 At the same time, TVWF requires member states do not restrict the retransmission of TV programming originating in other EU states as long as it meets TVWF rules. ... In this way the TVWF creates a single market in the EU TV industry.


Now, as none of the foreign adult services (except Xtasi, but then they were broadcasting scat whish is prosecutable under the OPA) have been proscribed since 2000, the adult broadcaster services ith the EU must comply with the TVWF rules otherwise the Departure of Culture Media and Sport would have acted to block them, as they did with Xtasi, by issuing a prosciption order.

So Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly and in doing what they are currently doing have in fact created an isolated market actively excluding EU hard adult channels from being carried by domestic broadcast services.

This is against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market, so why are Ofcom and the DCMS allowed to get away with it?

[Jacques]

Ah yes....all those with human rights are equal but some are more equal than others......