Just as the U.S., with the surprising help of the Supreme Court, is starting to emerge from its shell of puritan genophobia, Britain is persisting in its state of paranoia and censorship with the passage of a new law, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, that will make possessing “extreme pornography” (“any extreme image produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”) illegal, as reported by Telegraph UK. In addition, another law, the Coroners and Justice Bill, will ban possession of any image involving sexual activity and children. These laws are reminiscent of the recent U.S. “COPA” law that would have made possession of cartoon images of children illegal if deemed pornographic. That law was effectively overturned by the Supreme Court.
In Britain, opponents are arguing that the comic book industry would be destroyed by such laws, because even mainstream comics like Batman, Judge Dredd, and much of Japanese Manga would fall under the ambiguous and overly harsh blanket censorship. The British government apparently defines an “extreme image” as any “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise … obscene” moving or still depiction of someone any “reasonable person” would think real being sexually injured or engaging in sexual activity with an animal or corpse. (Because, you know, fictional corpses have rights, too!)
If you live in Britain, you might want to protest against this outrageous invasion of privacy, this blatant oppression and censorship based on religious extremism and fear.
Tags: animal, ban, Britain, British, campaign, cartoon, censor, censorship, children, Comic, criminal, Government, immigration, Law, legal, moral, Morality, puritan, rights, sex, Simpson, UK
This is one of those kneejerk laws. I hate this kind of law with a passion, because it was probably done as in response to something specific and the creation of blanket law that 'just happen' to also cover the initial event is lazy, smacks of righteousness and bigotry.
Since we are not apparently talking about real people being hurt, which I am against, but drawn depictions of people being hurt I fail to see where the problem is? Khajuraho, an ancient temple filled with statues, would not be able to be photographed or published under this new law because it has a few centuries old statues depicting things that would be deemed offensive under the new law. Possibly the Venus De Milo statue, would not be publishable, since naturally she's an amputee and thus offensive.
Laws like this go beyond a single persons offence at a Frank Miller comic, and reverberate throughout many forms of media, giving the weight of law to kneejerk reactionism and piety.
for the love of Dog, the frigging world is falling apart, and THIS is what legislators are going to spend their time on? No wonder everything is so f'd up.