Posts
Over the years I've heard (and said) quite a few alarming things at London Skeptics in the Pub but Myles Jackman's sign off to his talk, The Obscenity Lawyer:What's the Truth Behind Age Verification? was right up there. Luckily, it was very much in context with his excellent, enlightening, and humorous forty five minute speech. One that had my eyes watering in places. For a variety of different reasons.
Recent political developments meant the talk began with something of a proviso. Last Thursday, parliament voted to change the law on age verification for the Internet so instead of the talk now being just about age verification, Myles was going to extend it to include some background on obscenity law and how it works. I'd seen him talk about obscenity law before and knew that he was both incredibly knowledgeable about it and that his delivery came with a side order of dark humour. Which seems appropriate considering some of the subject matter.
Myles Jackman does not look like your typical lawyer. He looks more like a roadie for Grinderman with his Batman t-shirt, customised Doc Martens, and unkempt beard - and he peppers his delivery with smutty asides and swearing to highly amusing effect. Even when a pissed Polish guy in the audience asked him a question in Polish he batted him off with both charm and imperturbability.
He began the evening by explaining that criminal offences relating to obscenity come under two distinct categories. Possession and distribution. If you own some illegal pornography you're committing a possession offence and if you send it to anyone else you're committing a distribution offence. But what is obscenity? How is it defined?
It's been a grey area ever since the publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover in 1928 and it's not getting any clearer now. Obscenity is defined as something that is either depraved or corrupt. Images that, if seen, could actually corrupt the viewer or send them into a spiral of depravity. Which sounds like fun. But it proves to be something of a movable feast, very dependent on modern standards.
The old list (up until last week) of depraved, corrupt, obscene, and therefore illegal pornography included sexual acts with animals, realistic portrayals of rape, fisting, urine drinking, dismemberment or graphic mutilation, torture with 'instruments' (I don't think they mean forcing a flute up someone's bumhole), certain types of bondage, and hardcore sadomasochism.
Although, as Myles was quick to point out, it doesn't include CIA waterboarding or ISIS throwing LGBTQ+ people to their deaths from towers. Those things are more acceptable to share because they're just violence, rather than sexual violence. So even obviously faked violent sexual acts can get you into more trouble than actual deadly violence. In terms of sharing videos, at least.
Jackman seems quite eager to talk about what he describes as his "two favourites" - fisting and water sports. He points out that the law accepts that both vaginal and anal fisting is legal (four fingers, apparently, isn't fisting - that's the rule of thumb) but representation of it, or distribution of images of it, is (or was) illegal. It's kind of the obverse of the old Doug Stanhope observation that prostitution is illegal in the USA except if somebody is filming it. You can pay people to have sex to make pornography but not for personal pleasure.
Now, fisting and pissing on each other have joined the old permitted list of acts like oral sex, wanking, anal sex, vaginal sex, and mild bondage. There's a general consensus among libertarians that if it's legal to do it, it should be legal to share images of it - providing there is consent from all parties and that they're old enough to consent. Which is covered in law anyway.
But, often, confusion arises. A man in North Wales, one of Myles Jackman's clients, was arrested for making a pornographic film of a tiger having sex with a woman. On closer inspection it became obvious that it was actually a man 'wearing' a tiger skin rug. Something that's certainly odd - but something that wouldn't look very much like a real tiger. 'Necrobabes' videos, too, have caused people problems - even though these were proven to be faked, and very obviously faked.
Now, some of these kinks are undoubtedly unpleasant ones to have (Myles Jackman urged everyone present not to, under any circumstances, Google BME Pain Olympics) but if it's just people acting (even acting dead) should they be illegal? What about Twink pornography? Twink is the gay equivalent of Barely Legal, youngish looking guys but ones that are actually above the age of consent.
Cartoon pornography can be illegal if it involves a child so, in theory, you could draw a stick man with his badly drawn willy out next to a smaller figure and get your collar felt. The way round it, Jackman claimed, was to say the smaller figure was Tyrone Lannister from Game of Thrones and not an actual child. Then you're in the clear.
After digressions into simulated rape porn, QUILFs, how the description "filthy, loathsome, and lewd" sounded like a great album title, and the news that most of Myles's clients work in IT (they tend to think they can hide their porn - they can't), we came to the news that now harm caused during the making of grot needs to be at ABH levels to be illegal. Needles and mild cutting are now fine and, a rectal surgeon had been to able to confirm to Myles, anal fisting is unlikely to cause long term harm (though he did add the caveat that a shotgun up the arse is dangerous).
As anyone who's looked at porn (most of you I expect) will know it's not difficult to get around current age verification. You just click on a box and you're in (if you'll pardon the expressions) but now, with the more liberal approach to more hardcore pornography, age verification is to be tightened up (again, pardon the expression). But that's not without problems. Lots of them.
In a world of multiple content providers, multiple ISPs, blocking orders, VPNs, and proxies it seems like it will be pretty easy, if you're determined enough, to get around any new age verification software. Look at the catastrophic shitshow that is Brexit and ask yourself if you really believe this Tory government will be able to put anything workable in place.
PornHub (a large internet porn provider, so I'm told) have estimated that between 20,000,000 and 25,000,000 UK citizens will sign up to their services within the first month of the law changes. That's a lot of wankers and a lot of wanking. Imagine all that energy being put to use elsewhere!
There are also concerns that age verification software on porn could be a taster for other online transgressions and perceived transgressions, so there are worries about personal liberties. Personal privacy too. Once the proposed age verification measures are in place (many of them outsourced, of course) this could act as a huge data mine. You may be annoyed that Facebook knows your voting intentions but PornHub and xHamster will have a very clear image of your sexual inclinations and proclivities.
The law has been passed and will be rubber stamped this month. It's expected to come into play in April but it's not even remotely fit for purpose, it's totally unworkable, and it will have an effect on freedom of speech - but it's unsure what that effect will be as yet.
It seems to me while we're concerned about the age of consent we must be careful not to forget that we live in, and always have (and always will), an age of context. In Australia, one of their plans to stop child porn being disseminated was using an algorithm that looked for small breasts. So, if small boobs (on grown women) were your thing you could be investigated as a potential paedophile.
Another amusing example of the grey areas regarding legality (and in the Q&A, Myles offered people the chance to play a little game called "Is my porn legal now? - one in which he proudly declared not only is his personal favourite porn legal but he had been responsible for legalising it) involved picking mushrooms in a Royal Park. That act is illegal so if a film featured a consensual couple fisting each other and then pissing on each other's faces that would be perfectly fine unless, in the background, someone was seen picking mushrooms in Hyde Park. That act would render it illegal pornography!
It's a fascinating area and it must be a fascinating, if often disturbing, job that Myles does. Luckily he was able to share stories with us without breaching any laws. I learnt, I laughed, and, somewhat oddly, I listened to Prefab Sprout's When Love Breaks Down before Myles took the stage. Another great evening from London Skeptics in the Pub.
No comments:
Post a Comment