header-logo header-logo

The politics of porn

09 August 2007 / Clare Mcglynn , Erika Rackley , Erika Rackley
Issue: 7285 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

The government should reconsider plans to criminalise the possession of adult pornography, say Professor Clare McGlynn and Dr Erika Rackley

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill published on 26 June 2007 includes measures to create the new criminal offence of possessing “extreme pornography”, a term which includes necrophilia, bestiality and serious or life-threatening injury. While the government claims that the measures will simply close a gap in existing legislation, they are much more significant than that. They would create the first possession offence in respect of adult pornography anywhere in Europe. This may sound dramatic, but that’s because it is. Creating such an offence, thereby criminalising individuals sitting at home if they download certain materials, requires careful justification.

While we broadly support the measures, we have reservations about the nature of the justifications offered by the government and the absence of sufficient defences. Further, while the measures have been criticised for being over-broad, we are concerned that in respect of what we perceive to be the most harmful form of extreme

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll