egafd.com

I wonder how many of you film-makers would still make uncensored films in defiance of Draconian censorship that existed with the introduction of the Video Recordings Act 1984?!hmmm!
Mike Freeman

Interesting Mike, if the human right to free expression is to have any value at all, then it must be the responsibility of those who wish to restrict free expression to prove that restrictions are necessary, not the responsibility of those who wish to conduct free expression to prove that restrictions are unnecessary.

As fundamental Human Rights are at stake, restrictions should only be imposed in cases where there is clear, reliable evidence that disproportionate harm would be caused.

There needs to be evidence that it is harmful before it can be censored, if there is no such evidence then censorship of consensual adult pornography is a violation of the right to free expression.

Therefore any censorship of consensual adult pornography should include a reason for the cut(s) and relavent proof of harm. Only then can censorship be acceptable and seen as not from the 'moral minority'.

So in theory we all should be making the kind of films we want on the provisio that it is consensual and there is no reliable evidence of harm caused.

The reality is, it's a business and therefore about money - make a film, get it out there, hopefully make some money from it.

Hi Jaques,
Censorship is exercised under the Obscene Publications Act and this is the act a film-maker would be tried under for selling uncertificated material if the CPS thought that they had a chance of a conviction.

The OPA tries to prove that "a reasonable person would be corrupted" if they came into contact with the alleged obscene article.
It has never been proved that anyone ever was corrupted and the OPA is merely an artificial censorship device. However several film-makers were imprisoned under it for films featuring consenting adults. Myself and Ben Dover included.

Paradoxically,thereare several scientific studies to show thar pornography reduces sex crime. The first being made by Dr Berl Kuthchinsky of the Copenhagen Forensic Sceince department in 1972. This is why most other European countries eventually legalised pornograpy for adults.

Mike Freeman

Never did anything but Mike !

Hi Mike, those who campaign against pornography do not do so on the basis of the evidence, but on the basis of belief and with tunnel vision like that reports such as Kuthchinsky mean nothing to them.

The OPA is really out of date and way too subjective, even the CPS don't get it right, reference the Robert Mapelthore embarassment a couple of years ago and the situation of 'Art House' films like Taxi Zum Klo. That would be considered obscene, except Section 4(1A) permits it under the "public good" defence. The police know that any attempt to prosecute would bring them into disrepute and ridicule, not to mention all the academics, artists and public figures who would queue up to defend in court because it's not pornographic, it's art.

So let's all make Art House films and see what they do...lol!

Hi Jacques,
I was acquitted under the OPA at he Old Bailey in 1983 under the defence that my films were art. Derek Malcolm, the film critic of the Guardian was my star witmess. I was acquitted after he said my films were "harmless erotica."!cool!
I defended myself.
Mike

Jaques,
The question is whether or not you would have made hardcore films in defiance of the state?
Just think you could go to prison for the R18 genre that is legal today.
Mike.

Dave,
I see everyone is avoiding the question.
Mike.

Good question, Mike. The way I see it is that porn is divided up into two fairly distinct camps - the 'Geezers' and the 'Purvys'. The Geezers are in it for the money and any sexual interest in the job is incidental or of the 'take it or leave it' variety. But the Purvys are in it for the purvery. Of course they don't mind if they make a few quid along the way, but what they are really there for is to indulge their secret purvy desires and have sexual contact with young females. Sexual contact that may well be denied to them in Civi Street, either because they are ugly bastards, losers, or they?re well into middle age, and in any other social sphere sexual contact between girls in their late teens/early twenties and guys old enough to be their dads would be viewed as odd, sleazy, and taboo - I mean, shit. What does the iPod generation have in common with the 8-Track generation, anyway? Hell, it's just out of order.

But anyhow, the Geezers were happily doing porno when it was all well illegal. A time when the risk of having your collar felt and spending time in the cells was very real. Incarceration and state persecution were just occupational hazards to the Geezers, a chance worth taking for a generous slice of a big pie. But the government then made it 'semi-legal', and so the purvys (who were well scared of the Old Bill) felt it safe to come out from the shadows and get themselves a (purvy) slice of the pie. They didn't care that all the really tasty totty had long since deserted the genre - scrawny council estate birds were cheaper, easier to impress, control, and were generally less sexually threatening than the more attractive, feminine, sophisticated young ladies of yor.

So, that's the background to the question. Now, as to whether the purvys would scarper faster than you could say ?Repressive, Draconian, Sexual Offences ?N? Morality Bill? in the face of new legislation? Well, yes, most likely. But porn fans shouldn?t have nightmares, as the Geezers would still be there, standing steadfast, ready and willing to step into the breach ? for a modest consideration, of course.


Officer Dibble

Hi Officer,

Thank you for your long reply to my question.
I think you have fell into the trap of assuming that "porn" is a ghetto genre and is made by "geezers and "purves".

Pornography is a genre it is true but one can never generalise. It always amused me when some sneering public schoolboy accused me of just making it for the money as though if one was a pornographer one should make it it just for the love of it. As though the filthy lucre dirtied all the images. It was alright for everyone else to make some money especially the legal profession out of porn trials!

I was delighted when I could sell pornographic drawings to the Soho bookshops in the Sixties! Not many people could draw, I knew that. It is more a question of if you have a talent for making images then you will never starve because erotica is one genre that you can always sell.

Most people obey the law because they are afraid of the consequences. When the extreme pornography bill is published some film-makers will not be able to publish legally in this country. However there will be the artist who enjoys making the sexual imagery, that they can no longer make legally, and and goes on making it. They risk imprisonment because they feel that it should be legitimate subject matter and that the law should be changed. Pornographers have always pushed moral boundaries in spite of state censorship and perhaps because of it.

You mention teenage girls from the council flats in a derogatory manner. Some of the one's I know are beautiful and if they act in a porn film and get paid several hundred for a day's work then great. Today's girls are just as horny as the retro girls but it all depends on whether you can use that trick of the light to make them look sexually attractive on screen : it is easy to make them ugly.

Of course the company of horny young birds is nice and sometimes you might fuck one but then that is the prerogative of many a sexually attractive man.

I did step into the breach at the Old Bailey in 1983 when I was acquitted of publishing the Videx Video Show by a racially mixed jury including four women. I turned to prosecuting counsel and said " I have smashed the Obscene Publications Act so don't use it on me again."
It was war and he knew that. The money was good too but it always is when you can create images that will arouse people's sexual desires.

After that the censorship brigade brought in the Video Recordings Act 1984 and tried to deny any filmmaker the right to a jury trial under the OPA.
Mike Freeman.