header-logo header-logo

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

The politics of porn

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll