Utah decides to make pornography a public health issue...

This is perhaps the most baffling, the most unbelievable, the most stupid reason I've ever heard for banning pornography, and the reality is, it won't change a thing.

And yes, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to ban porn, under the guise of declaring it a "public health crisis".

But it should come as no surprise.  Back in 2009, a study showed that Utah had the highest rate of online adult site subscriptions in the US.  And ever since then, the political nuts have been trying to take out the industry, no matter what.

But, no matter what those who favour censorship and restriction may try and do, they can never silence the people.

By trying to ban it, all they do, is make it more attractive.  By trying to restrict it, they encourage people to watch it.  By claiming it's about 'public health', they are really trying to avoid the reality that this is about the same old "we know what's best for you" attitude that conservatives have tried to force on people for years.

Internet firewalls put up by governments are regularly breached by individuals, the anti-censorship movement is as strong as ever, and the rights of people to watch anything legal in their homes, must be upheld, no matter what the pro-censorship brigade might think.

OFCOM and ‘sexy’ phone-in channels

OFCOM has repeatedly had problems regulating the kind of sexy phone in channels that appear on Sky in the 900s section of the EPG. 

Just recently, OFCOM fined two companies for broadcasting sexy material straight after the watershed on FTA channels.  Now, bear in mind, the watershed is 9pm.  By OFCOM’s own definition…

“…The watershed only applies to television. The watershed is at 2100. Material unsuitable for children should not, in general, be shown before 2100 or after 0530.”

It was material unsuitable for children, and it was broadcast after the watershed, yet they were still fined.

Additionally in the same Broadcast Bulletin, OFCOM found the channels in breach on about 10 separate occasions, despite the fact that only 1 of these occasion actually contravenes OFCOM’s own rules about R18-strength material.  All other incidents related to material comparable to those seen in movies rated 18 by the BBFC.

This is why I find the whole business of regulation these days to be totally out of sync with reality.  We see more violence on television dramas and movies than we see sex, and sex is regarded as the more corrupting, yet there has been many occasions when words encouraging violent acts have brought those acts about.  That’s called Incitement, and its against the law.  Yet the right wing will say, “NO, sorry, you can’t encourage someone to commit a violent act.”, yet in the same breath, they will say that the depiction of sex is a “…corrupting influence…”.  There’s only one thing to say to a viewpoint like that.

“THAT’S A TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL AND NONSENSICAL VIEWPOINT.  The facts do NOT back up your views.”

But then the right wing doesn’t seem to let facts get in the way of their own delusions.

In OFCOM’s case here, they are trying to walk what they consider to be a tightrope, when in fact, beneath that “tightrope” is a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon, with the pro-censorship brigade on one side, and reality (and just about everybody else) on the other.  There’s no fine line between the camps, there’s a huge gap, and you’re NEVER gonna satisfy the pro-censorship camp, so don’t waste your time trying to. 

Besides which, the Virgin Media, Freeview, Freesat and Sky platforms all have a facility called PIN protection.  Basically, you can block access to programmes and channels you don’t want kids to watch by setting a PIN. 

This smacks of censorship by stealth, and to be frank, it is not OFCOM’s job to be am self-appointed censor.  That the BBFC’s job.  And if material is shown that IS comparable to material shown in films that have been rated by the BBFC as 18, then OFCOM HAS NO BUSINESS TRYING TO CENSOR IT.

Progressive journalist arrested.

Maybe I’m strange but this story doesn’t make sense to me at all.  Either someone at the border has a huge case of paranoia, or a prominent independent media journalist made up a story in order to get more notoriety for herself.  The report comes from CBC News Vancouver.

There’s a longer version of this report at the CBC News website, but it seems that at the moment, they don’t allow their video to be embedded which is a shame.  There’s also the full 14 minutes of interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman at the CBC News website.

Amy Goodman is known as being part of the independent progressive media, which obviously doesn’t agree with a Canadian Conservative government.  The guise of concern over Olympic security is just a cover story for an attempt to censor the media.  The media has been a favourite right wing bogeyman for years, but in more recent times, the idea of a politicised media has gained a lot of traction.  I think it’s time the media got back to basics, reporting facts and truth, rather than seeking to propagate political agendas.

When does kinky porn become Illegal?

BBC News has an article about the fine line between porn that is kinky and porn that is illegal under a new law, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, that will get its final reading this week.

The new law defines extreme pornography, which will be declared illegal under the new law as...

• An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
• An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
• An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
• A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

This law has been drafted in a hurry, rushed through, not properly considered, and an overreaction. This law makes criminals out of consumers, rather than producers, which still applies by the way in the 1959 Obscene Publications Act.

There is no way that any government should be interfereing in people's private lives. Censorship is a no-no.