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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll