Extreme pornography law: they tried to sound sane but the law is mad

[ciphergoth]

emarkienna has published an analysis of the new extreme pornography law. They tried to sound sane and reasonable during the consultation process, but the law they've come up with is censorious madness. You can explicitly get three years inside for copying a segment from a legally-bought Hollywood movie into your porn folder.

Backlash are campaigning against the new law.

Aaaarghg.

Comments

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

I know it's ridiculous :-(

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

So basically it's thought crime.

That scene in Casino Royale where Bond is being tortured by being repeatedly struck in the genitals with a knotted rope: if you watch it and cross your legs in sympathy, it's OK; if you watch it and open 'em, it's a criminal act.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

Quibble: they didn't sound sane or reasonable during the consultation process, and broke half of the Cabinet Office guidelines on consultation.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Is this now officially in law, then?

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

I am beginning to think that the 'consultation' process has ceased to have any meaning - right across the board, in all fields of law, we're seeing examples of legislators with a specific agenda making no reference to legitimate interests. Nor to specific warnings about unworkable restrictions and unintended consequences.

In my field (banking) Parliamentary committees, the Treasury and the FSA receive submissions from people who work in the relevant field and have direct experience of working with good and bad examples of legislation in other jurisdictions; sometimes we are listened to, and sometimes our input isn't just ignored or left to gather dust - sometimes it seems that wilful and perverse decisions are made in order to be seen doing the opposite of what is known to be proportionate, practicable and acceptable to those most affected by the law.

'Thought Crime', indeed. Someone's thought this through, and sees a political gain in being seen to be oppressive and impractical. No matter what gallery they are playing to - standing ovations at the party conference, Christian Fundamentalists, or kudos within some cabal of politically-correct nomenklatura - our one remaining weapon is to make them seem ridiculous. Let's face it, 'unjust', 'unworkable' and 'discriminatory' don't seem to be effective criticisms if you measure their effect on the legislative process and the administration of the law.

In short, if 'consultation' and the established 'Green Paper' - 'White Paper' system is failing, then press campaigns and the politics of ad-hominem attacks are the best hope of achieving reasoned and considered law.

It's not a very attractive hope, is it?

[aster13.livejournal.com]

Ugh, this is utterly ridiculous, and sounds rather ambigiously worded, as well. "intended" - how the hell are you supposed to work out what is intended in a photograph?!

[boxcat.livejournal.com]

It's being pushed through as part of a Law and Order Bill, so will undoubtedly go through.

There are a few Tories trying to make a stand based on civil liberties grounds, despite the traditional opposition of the Tory Party to voting against Law and Order Bills. You met one of the people involved in this effort recently.