This is very late. My bad again. Very busy here, my dears.
Last Sunday's show gave me a nasty chill while we were sitting there in the studio. We already have laws that cover images of children, and many forms of violence, but here we are presented with the deliberate(?) and emotive mix-up of the words 'aberrant' and 'abhorrent', and the fact that sex with an animal is happily equated with owning a certain kind of picture.
Aside from anyone who wants to explore their sexuality, this is going to affect artists, and highlights even more our new age of self-censorship. Back in the 80s, when Clause 28 was enacted, which banned the 'promotion of homosexuality' in schools, I remember a TV debate about it, and someone, Sir Peter Hall, I think, smashing a statue of Michaelangelo's David with a hammer. Here we are again.
This, coupled with the greater powers of arrest in the UK, for victimless crimes like litter-dropping and not wearing a seatbelt, and - just in today - the fact that, from April, all criminal convictions, and even cautions, will remain on file for 100 years makes me wonder just how much time these lawmakers have on their hands. I was never one for whining about how we live in a 'police state', bearing in mind what people go through in other countries, but I'm almost starting to think again. I can't believe any policeman wants much to do with all this either, as it will just mean yet more admin (and target-setting?) for the ordinary copper.
In the US, Red Rose Stories and Midori's Beauty Bound have already had to close down, and the much-loved Rate My Schlong has now turned into 'rate my bulge'. Thanks to Gordon for that last one.
As you may have read by now, Christopher Wilson has finally come to an agreement with the prosecutors. Guess what? The site has to close in three months' time.
This is bad news all round, folks.
JUST IN
A friend of mine writes, after listening to the podcast:
"In your most recent programme about censorship and the internet, one very important thing did not seem to be emphasised: If a file is not clearly marked, how can the person downloading it know on which side of the law it will place them until they have actually seen it?
"I had an extremely unpleasant experience just before Christmas. I was looking through a Japanese website of video clips where I had found a collection of bizarre and quite amusing snippets. Although the links were in Japanese, the filenames were in English and I assumed might have given a clue as to the content.
"One file I downloaded, with a name which suggested that it was a trivial joke, turned out to contain an absolutely horrific actuality scene which utterly shocked me and gave me sleepless nights. If I had had the slightest warning what it was about, I would not have touched it. I have never downloaded anything from that website since.
"Supposing it had been a scene of something which put me on the wrong side of the law (it wasn't). I would have been guilty of an offence without having had any opportunity to avoid it.
"One of your interviewees did make the point that her own website is plastered with warnings, so you know what you are about to see if you go any further. That is good practice, but until it is enforced for all 'adult' websites, I do not see how a prosecution can be morally justified for an occasional download of illegal material that has not been clearly marked as such."
Legislators, take note.
