Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Extreme pornography: 'Mr MacAskill is coming over as a kill-joy'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 January 2009
Evening News Comment
THERE can be no argument that action to limit the viewing and distribution of extreme pornography is desirable. But where to draw the line in proposed new legislation is a potential minefield for Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
Under plans to be unveiled in detail by the Government next month, downloading images of rape and other extreme material will be punishable by up to three years in prison.

But precisely how he and ministers define what represents the unacceptable
exploitation of victims by criminals and the legitimate depiction of sexual acts involving consenting adults could keep government lawyers occupied – entertained even – for years. It potentially throws Scotland back to the days of the Lady's Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial and the Lord Chamberlain's censorship of West End theatre.

And who could forget the farce of the early 80s when the religious zealots on Glasgow City Council forced the banning of Monty Python's Life of Brian on the grounds of blasphemy. A different sort of censorship but censorship all the same

Since taking over the justice brief Mr MacAskill has often courted controversy and it is difficult at times to work out just what kind of Scotland he envisages.

He is right in that we do not want children to grow up in a culture where alcohol-fuelled violence is an acceptable hazard of a night out – or of a night in for that matter. But demonising anyone who likes a drink or two occasionally is not the solution to the problem. His desire to see drink removed from displays in supermarkets and minimum prices set will be as unsuccessful in curbing alcohol abuse as his government's plans to hide cigarettes under shop counters will stop people smoking.

Given that sex assault and any exploitation of children is already illegal, the latest proposals centre around depiction, but how the law is supposed to decide whether a film like Straw Dogs or A Clockwork Orange, both of which feature sexual violence, should or shouldn't be made illegal is anyone's guess.

Much of this legislation already applies to the internet, which has become the focus of Mr MacAskill's attention. And in any case, changes to the law will not stop the viewing of explicit material, nor for the most extreme cases will the threat of prison.

Of course Mr MacAskill is well-intentioned but as the old saying goes that is what paves the road to hell. The best that can be said for some of his hare-brained schemes is that he is attempting to score politically-correct, tough-on-crime populist points, but instead he is coming over as a kill-joy who cares little for the implications or the detail of his proposals.

And headline-chasing is not something of which the Scottish Government is in short supply.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 January 2009 9:35 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Pornography
 
1

Niko Bellic,

22/01/2009 12:06:49
Tram porn should be banned, that's for sure.
2

Hmm?,

22/01/2009 12:09:29
One might also comment that such legislation is to all intents and purposes unenforceable anyway which begs the question(s) what's the point of it and where can our government get advice about the internet from someone who actually knows something about how it works?
3

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/01/2009 12:17:28
"THERE can be no argument that action to limit the viewing and distribution of extreme pornography is desirable."

Oh yes there is! What right does anyone have to restrict what a consenting adult can view? Provided no laws were broken during the making of the material, there should be no restrictions whatsoever.

As for the rest of it, it is a typical MacAskill folly. He has made a law that is un-enforceable, un-workable, won't address any issue in particular and is a waste of time.

Hopefully it will be quietly forgotten about and left to languish in some dusty vault somewhere until in many years time, it is re-discovered and everyone has a damn good laugh about it.

On a more serious note, anyone as bumbling and plainly ignorant as MacAskill should be ousted from government immediately.
4

Embra boy,

Edinburgh 22/01/2009 12:30:49
Nothing to say really, I was just attracted to this article by a 9 letter word in the headline. No, not that one - "MacAskill" of course!

5

brandy al,

embra 22/01/2009 12:40:06
I thought it was Ian MacAskill the weather man going to give us some dirty weather report.
6

TheLightAtTheEnd,

22/01/2009 12:47:43
Ever since he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly at a scotland v england game Macaskill has become worse than an ex smoker. Curiously he was let off with that charge - I wonder if any of us would have been?
7

elayne,

22/01/2009 13:02:00
im no lover of pornography by any means,but if people want to look at it etc,as long as they are of legal age its no one elses business.
8

Yabanci,

22/01/2009 13:16:45
If I want to look at an extreme image - like a nearly naked person being nailed to bits of wood against their will - then I don't need the Internet - a stroll into just about any church will do.

Art galleries will be another good source of kindling.

Will we sleepwalk a Taliban like state where art is destroyed because it doesn't fit in with an overlords enforced morality?
9

Ron D,

Enybru 22/01/2009 13:29:22
Evidently there isn't enough real work to occupy the Scottish Parliament. Or is there too much left over in the consultancy budget?
10

moralpanix,

22/01/2009 14:27:32
"THERE can be no argument that action to limit the viewing and distribution of extreme pornography is desirable."
I know I'm not the first to remark on this, but it just shows that, like politicians, journalists can be astonishingly out of touch with public opinion. Does the writer not know that every public comment forum of this sort shows opposition to this law of least ten to one?

And if the writer (unnamed - surely this can't be Evening News editorial) did their homework they'd find that among many of the reasons given, the balance of evidence suggests that this law is likely to make sex crime worse.

No argument, eh?
11

Demeter,

Edinburgh 22/01/2009 14:51:27
Two of my major concerns regarding this piece of, erm, "legislation" are actually being addressed in this article!!!

One of these concerns is the fact that it is censorship at all, and the moment you condone, either actively or passively by non-objection, any form of censorship, just because the topic it is censoring doesn't concern you, you open the door for other censorships to be impose that will affect you. They're relying on current state of political apathy to allow them to pass laws which are, if intended as anything other than a PR exercise, terrifying in their vagueness.

The other point of concern is that very vagueness. Where a law is vague it leaves a lot, much more than usual, open to personal interpretation. In older laws if the meaning is unclear, judges and lawyers and the police have precedent to follow. If a new law does not clearly state definitions of what is covered by it, then the judiciary have nothing to follow other than their own personal feelings on the matter. Vague laws lead to unsafe convictions. Unsafe convictions lead to challenges made against these convictions. Successful and unsuccessful challenges cost the tax payer money. In short, vague laws cost the tax payer money that could be better spent elsewhere, like protecting children that are believed to be in danger by social workers for instance.
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/01/2009 15:23:39
#6:

He was never charged with anything, so he never "got off".

"I wonder if any of us would have been?"

Actually, it's quite possible that would happen. If the "police, death, kill" programs are anything to go by, people who are a bit drunk and disorderly but calm down after a few hours in the cells generally are released without charge.

I'm not saying that doing this is right, but I expect that whatever MacAskill was up to when he was arrested, he started to see sense once he was in the back of a police van and calmed down.

Notwithstanding all that, it isn't a way I'd expect anyone in any kind of office to behave.
13

Mallory,

Edinburgh 22/01/2009 17:04:20
Now if he had been 'fire-raising' it would have been a different story #6
14

fair scunnered,

edinburgh 22/01/2009 19:42:02
#11 this site is crawling with censorship,i posted 2 facts about what l hinds was doing,and "BANG" removed,so i put in one joking about it "BANG" and it was gone,yes just like that advert
so are they gonna censor dolly the sheep photos?,ah well a lot of highlanders sex lifes are now gone
15

elayne,

22/01/2009 20:40:38
#15 fifers too
16

Grahamm,

23/01/2009 00:26:35
"There can be no argument that action to limit the viewing and distribution of extreme pornography is desirable."

The hell there can't be!

This law is only "desirable" to those who think that the general public are a bunch of weak-minded potential nut-cases who, at the slightest sight of anything like this will go into a murderous frenzy and go out and kill someone and, thus, cannot be trusted.

I find it astonishing that an Editorial Comment in a newspaper supports the blunt instrument of State Censorship, especially one that is wielded on *no* credible evidence that this material is any threat to anyone.

Does the writer of this Comment have the slightest clue about the threat this law poses to the ability of his newspaper and the rest of the UK media to publish articles or anything in a free manner?

Once this law is in place it will set a precedent that the Government can say "No, we think this is bad, so we're not going to let you publish it or let anyone read it"

You may be suckered by the argument that "oh, it's only extreme pornography and nobody can object to that", but once we open the door to State Control of what we can look at or possess, it will be *very* difficult to close it again.
17

mark1234,

23/01/2009 00:32:33
A good article. In answer to where the line should be drawn - drawing the line between acts where the participants were consenting, and those made with unwilling participants, is a much more ethical, and clearer line, than trying to arbitrarily say that some kinds of depictions are okay, whilst others aren't, ignoring how the images were actually produced.

(And if anyone thinks "But surely you can't consent to [very extreme act]" - well, at the least, the line should be drawn such that it only covers actual acts, and not depictions of something that appeared to happen.)

This is indeed another step in the censorship battle - but it is a very worrying turn. This is the first time that simple possession has been seen as a criminal offence - even of entirely private photos. Previous laws targetted publication and distribution. It's one thing to consider the law when you are publishing a film, but a ban on possession means you are at risk everytime you browse an adult website, or make kinky photos with your partner.

Filmmakers are at least safe to make material, and then see what needs to be cut. A law on possession means they commit a crime has soon as the image is taken.

A law on publication may be temporary in its effects, but a law on possession means the material must be destroyed, and is lost even if the law changes in future - think of all the now-legal works that would have been lost, if censorship laws had always applied to possession?

The uncertainties of this law will create chilling effects, as few will want to go through a trial, and risk prison. This is even more true with Scotland's proposed law, than England's - how will it be judged if an image is meant to be depicting a non-consensual act? All sorts of images of rough sex, or sex with bondage, could be put at risk, even though the participants were consenting, and whether or not they intended it to depict a non-consensual act.
18

jimb4abobor2,

Edinburgh 23/01/2009 01:25:39
Load of bloody nonsense this is there is more rules now than they use in the schools in edinburgh. well they will also have to ban the books from the shelves of all retailers as well as they have naked bodies in them another los of revenue and maybe some more closure and loss off jobs what are they trying to do burst the DHSS at the seams or what if they had brains they would be dangerous.
19

brianmca3,

auld reekie 16/06/2009 02:49:22
ah well we can always look on the bright side of life

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.