IWF rethinks its role

Why the new law?

"Since the Ministry of Justice has repeatedly claimed that the new law will only catch material that would already be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, a window of opportunity exists for people to refer material on sites outside the UK to the IWF, obtain an assessment as to whether it is obscene, and then act accordingly."

If the material is already illegal under existing laws, then why not prosecute or otherwise deal with the matter under the existing law? There's no need to introduce a new law, which marginalises and criminalises ordinary people going about their daily business.

Extreme Positions.

"A spokeswoman for the IWF said: "Our role is that of an assessment and takedown body: we are not there to provide classification advice for the public"

One assumes that any such assessment and takedown follows specific guidelines/classification advice which it would be wise to share so as to avoid unnecessary ignorant third party action. To fail to do so, results in a gravy train feed loop resolving absolutely nothing.

The cynics would probably suggest that that is probably part and parcel of the no advice to the public strategy .... although it would also make them technically complicit in an act of omission that can lead to a prosecution?

In porn, to attack the Software Hosting side is a Useless Waste of Time and Effort whenever the Hardware Industry side remains Stronger than ever, and in all but what would be pretty obvious and/or grimly realistic Criminal Abuse cases, perfectly legal. However, whenever one supports and reports on war, a Perverse Pornography without Peer, it does render the argument somewhat hypocritical and therefore fundamentally flawed by reason of its subjective nature.

We don't need to refer stuff to the IWF.

It's already blocking stuff that's out there. FOI request to Ukonline I think.

Anything you can surf to is likely to either...

Have been seen by loads of people, and reported, and not blocked, hence it's not extreme.

or

Have been seen by loads of people, and not reported, and by implication, isn't extreme.

‘approved by the IWF’

Well, first up the "Internet" bit should give the game away, the law will affect non "internet" material which is obviously outside the IWF's remit. My rectal hamster videos on my laptop which obviously won't be connected to the internet is also outside the IWF's remit.

Secondly, the IWF isn't a legal body, the defence in court that "The IWF said it was OK" is totally worthless. It's as useful as saying "NASA said it was ok" or "My mates in the pub said it was OK". Their opinion has no legal force, to rely on it in court would be reckless.

Clearly if I take a printed out photograph to the IWF and they say "It's none of our business, we look at internet stuff but phwoar it looks all right to me." I'm going to be properly in the shit when the police nab me for my extreme rectal hamster shots.

Serious incompetence from the MOJ

This whole act is a shambles.

2 points

1. @Why the new law?

the anser is simple the previous law only banded the "publishing or importing" of this stuff not the owning of it (IANAL) so with the internet you can get the mertail with out doing eather (importing needs to go throught a port) so a new law is needed baning ownership of the stuff to block the loop hole .... simple ........

well not realy cos the goverment have extended the law and changed parts of it and refused to give defnations to the turns they use like obseen and injury

2. asking the IWF was never the anser and the MOJ should have known this is this law covers images and movies of all types not just thouse on the internet the simple way to prove this is to send print outs of potentaly illagle pics to the MOJ and ask them if these would be illagle and see if then they want to get you to ask the

IWF

Re: Why the new law?

I think this question has already been answered several times. Here's what I understand: the OPA only criminalises publication; the new "extreme porn" law criminalises possession. That is a huge change and a massive invasion into everyone's privacy.

@Neil Hoskins

That's a stupid comparison. Spam is universally unwanted, so filtering it is good - and even then, most email users could disable their spam filters and/or look in their spam folder if they wanted to. And if they can't, they can legally find an email provider that allows them to. Porn is wanted by some and unwanted by others, so the individual should be able to decide whether he wants it or not.

Also, you're missing the point. The debate isn't on whether to filter porn or not. It's whether it's good to have a law that doesn't clearly define what it applies to. Would you like to be jailed for having pictures of your own kids playing in the swimming pool?

My take on a couple of comments

"the IWF isn't a legal body, the defence in court that "The IWF said it was OK" is totally worthless"

It's not totally worthless, it could be seen as expert opinion. An assessment made by a body that specialises in such assessments could well be taken as part of evidence. How much credence the courts subsequently give to that opinion is up to them.

"Why the new law?"

Because that unfortunate music teacher got killed by a nutter leading to some media spasms. Should have overhauled the Obscene Publications Act really, but that wouldn't have looked as good when reported back to Joe Public.

Just my 2 penneth.

Clam.

@JonB

"I'm going to be properly in the shit when the police nab me for my extreme rectal hamster shots."

As, indeed, is the hamster, presumably.

@Neil Hoskins

----

Yes, I think I'll turn off my spam control so that users can't find their email ... blah blah blah

----

Feel free - I've got greylisting on my own mailserver anyway, I do not have (nor do I intend to have) any kids - the only person that uses my (home) PC is me; the missus has her own laptop... and to be honest, I think I'm big enough, old enough and ugly enough to go "eeeew - that's not what I was looking for" if I happen to click the wrong link when looking for information about "Cassia fistula" - the golden shower tree.

If you want to block stuff in the work-place, feel free, I can think of no reason for most people to have access to most of the Internet whilst at work (there are obvious exceptions)... but at home, if someone decides to check out some BDSM goth-horror-fantasy website, or look up the Scunthorpe tourist information board, they should be allowed, surely?

We're two steps away from having Boris Vallejo book burnings - so remember folks, if Liberalism (left wing) equates to socialism/communism then it follows that Conservatism (right wing) equates to Dictatorships, Police States and "Nazi-ism" (as well as the Jews, Hitler went for the Socialists and the Trade Unions btw).

Following the answers to my original question..

This government really are a complete shower of turd!

Re: Why the new law?

"I think this question has already been answered several times. Here's what I understand: the OPA only criminalises publication; the new "extreme porn" law criminalises possession. That is a huge change and a massive invasion into everyone's privacy."

"a massive invasion into everyone's privacy" - no, not really. When the OPA was created in 1956 telephone mail order didn't exist, let alone online delivery of a publication. You needed to visit a shop or sent payment in the post. The OPA effectively blocked the opportunity to obtain obscene material.

Technology has bypassed the need to visit a shop. While it would be possible to amend the OPA to cover online sales and delivery it's not clear how the enforcement would work. It isn't sensible to try and prosecute an ISP for allowing the data into the country - in the same way it isn't sensible to try and make ferry companies liable for the pile of magazines in the boot of a car.

With electronic copies it's very difficult to identify the publisher or importer. This means criminalising the possession of obscene material as the obvious reaction. Perhaps was flawed and should have always included possession as well as publication.

Corruption

One problem I always have with stuff like this is ...

If this material is so corrupting that looking at it makes you a slavering paedo, how come the staff at IWF are somehow immune ?

again 2 points

@dennis

"When the OPA was created in 1956 " attudes where very diffrent so I think it is hi time it was updated it seames ludicrous that we are regesssing to a 1950's lvl of morlles

@shaggydoggy

"If this material is so corrupting that looking at it makes you a slavering paedo, how come the staff at IWF are somehow immune ?"

cos they have the "right" mental attude when they look at it it is like how pictures of naked pepol are of as long as it is for "art" so as long as you are thinking "art" or "just doing my job" when you look at it you are ok...eather that or they all take non crouption pills

@ SO WHY THE HELL INVENT A NEW LAW?

Because they can, and it's what they do. In total, the Government has brought in more than 3,500 new offences since May 1997. Significantly, more than half of these laws were introduced by means of secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council which are never debated in parliament.

This neatly reflects the barely concealed contempt that Tony Blair (lawyer) had for parliamentary democracy, and mirrors the contempt his Neocon allies had for the constitution of the United States.

Even while they were busy upending a bucket load of legislative shit on the citizens of the UK, New Labour still found time to push ahead with their main project which ironically consisted of having a bonfire of regulations and laws that restrained the worst instincts of businesses and markets. Rip Off Britain and Greed is Good were the new cornerstones of economic policy.

As we all now know, and many predicted, it all ended in tears. But do not despair, the boys and girls at GovUK have an explanation and a plan: It was a global crisis, nothing to do with us, guv. We will hand out billions of pounds of your money to the greedy bastards who caused the problem and make sure it never happens again by kicking the shit out of all those single parents and malingering disability claimants.

Pass the sick-bucket.

What puzzles me...

Is the circuitous and clearly bogus arguments:

"The OPA requires that a jury examine the material and decide if it is obscene, i.e. liable to deprave and corrupt."

So, if we the taxpayers get a jury to sit through a trial during which they are exposed to the by definition, most awful porn, then why don't they all turn into raving mad pervs and sue the state for causing them damage?

I'd like to see the figures for how many previously conviction free jury members have subsequently gone on to become pervs following a porn trial.

Mary Whitehouse used the same argument, that exposure to porn corrupted. Except for herself of course, and the police, who were continuously exposed to the muck, oh and the jury, the prosecutors, court clerks, public in the gallery...

Apparently it can only affect people who not narrow minded bigots.

Hello Left Hand...?

... this is Right Hand. Do you have any idea what I'm doing, because I don't!

@Neil Hoskins: Basically I'm fucking sick of fucking "libertarians" telling me that I have to view their sick pictures

And I'm sick of people like you using Straw Man arguments like this! You do *NOT* have to view these pictures, nobody is forcing you to view anything. You, however are telling everyone else that because *you* consider these images to "sick pictures" *THEY* should not be allowed to look at them which is bullshit. Your personal tastes (or those of Wacky Jacqui et al) should not govern what anyone else is allowed to look at "just in case it might make them think about doing something nasty".

@Dennis: "criminalising the possession of obscene material as the obvious reaction. "

No, it was a ridiculous over-reaction, especially since it is still entirely unclear as to what will be criminalised and what won't because such decisions are going to be based on the *subjective* opinions of the Police/ CPS/ DPP/ Magistrates...

But you're right, the OPA was flawed, is flawed, and always will be flawed and the best way to fix the problem is to get rid of it entirely.

IWF =

IWF = I Will F***ing decide what may or may not corrupt you imbeciles. It's OK for me to read/view because I am incorruptible, unlike you oiks who have no idea what sterling work I am doing, and christ-like suffering I am enduring, on your behalf out of the goodness of my heart.

@ShaggyDog

"If this material is so corrupting that looking at it makes you a slavering paedo, how come the staff at IWF are somehow immune ?"

What proof do you have that the IWF is not staffed by slavering paedos?

Re: Why the new law?

@Dennis:

"Perhaps was flawed and should have always included possession as well as publication."

No, we should have never criminalised publication, if the intent was to prevent people getting hold of it who wanted to get hold of it. The intent of censoring material under the OPA is out of fear of corrupting others. Who is corrupted if someone possesses an image? Who is the victim? The implication is that we need protecting from ourselves.

Whatever its intent, I think the only reason people tolerate the OPA is because the material might be seen by other people unintentionally, and some control on *publication* is seen as acceptable. Criminalising mere possession - taking that to even private images - is a whole different matter.

It is reasonable perhaps that someone seeking to publish should be aware of what would be illegal, and to have the work classified by the British Board of Film Classification. It is far less reasonable to expect an individual to be aware of what images are and aren't legal, when browsing the Internet, importing an unclassified film, or taking a private photo with his or her partner, nor is it reasonable or practical to have to subject every such image for classification.

And what happens if you submit an illegal image to the BBFC? Currently, they just ask you for cuts, but now you will already have been breaking the law from the moment the image was made!

Another problem is that a ban on possession means that the material must be destroyed. Even if some draconian laws on what is allowed are temporary, the material that is banned is forever lost, unless someone takes the risk of storing it. A ban on publication simply means that it can't be published for that period.

Imagine if obscenity laws had banned possession from the start - think of all the books that would have been burned, and lost forever!

Re: Corruption

Indeed, and if material is so corrupting, and if a certain recent image was really child porn, does that mean there are now a million more pedophiles? ( http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer )