[claudiawerner]

Censorship of erotic material isn't a purely Chinese thing, other countries practice it at smaller scales. In England, various fictional artworks can be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications act, even possession of some cartoon pornography can be prosecuted under CAJA 2009 s.63. To the dismay of LGBTQ+ and sexual freedom campaigners, even possession of simulated rape pornography is illegal.

That's not to say that homosexuality can be compared to fetish porn, but people should be aware that in some countries without constitutional protection for free speech (or those with one but with an "obscenity" exception, looking at you Canada) censorship of harmless porn is par for the course.

(Would someone mind explaining why this is being downvoted? In my experience, few people are familiar with such laws in Western countries, and of course I condemn China's laws more; is this comment off topic? Please tell me if I can improve.)

[lucozade]

Are you completely sure you want to use CAJA 2009 as your example? On the subject of pornography, that Act only covers images of sex with children (or images of children witnessing bestiality).

I presume you have some justification for asserting that LGBTQ+ campaigners had issues with that part of the Act because that's a pretty provocative assertion. My recollection (and the only evidence I can find from searching) is some concern from graphic novelists and their publishers that's proved baseless.

[claudiawerner]

>Are you completely sure you want to use CAJA 2009 as your example?

Yes, I am sure. Several researchers have noted also there is very little, if any, rational justification for that censorship. On what grounds do you say the concerns of the artists was baseless? My comment on LGBT campaigners was in reference to Cameron's 2015 law on simulated rape pornography.

[lucozade]

They’re baseless because their concerns haven’t materialised. The Act has had no effect on graphic novels.

[claudiawerner]

They've likely had chilling effects, haven't they? Just as with any censorship, there are chilling effects. According to some data I saw a while ago given in parliament, around 20 people a year are prosecuted for possession or production of the material, at least in magistrate courts. Taking the concerns of the graphic novel artists in a more general sense, they were completely right on warning about the juridification of the imagination. It's extremely unsettling how in the face of this you can say that their concerns haven't materialised, even given how overseas artists have lost the UK audience too. If Google were declared illegal to use, would you claim that its illegalisation has had no effect on web search?

As a side note, although there were no graphic novelists to speak for me, other regulation on fiction in the UK has had its own effects on my own online activity. The only way you'd know is if you had a keen enough eye to spot my activity cease when I was made aware of the hideous laws in England.

[lucozade]

I would hope they’ve had chilling effects or what would be the point of the legislation?

The 20 probably refers to the CPS’s VAWG report in 2012. As I’m sure you’re aware that was 20 cases that had magistrates’ hearings covered by section 62. Not convictions and not just cartoons (I don’t believe there were any cartoons but I could be mistaken). It was somewhat more the following year but still very low, <200.

If that has helped reduce the amount of child porn entering the UK from abroad then that’s great. I doubt it though.

No idea what this has to do with Google.

TBH if your work actually flouts section 62 then I’m 100% ok with you stopping. I see no particular need to support someone’s freedom to express depictions of child sex. Freedom of expression has far more important battles to fight than that.

[claudiawerner]

And it's funny that you say the number is so low; according to the stats of 2016-2017[0] there were 971 offences under s.62 recorded.

[0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publica... (page 71, A50)

[claudiawerner]

>I see no particular need to support someone’s freedom to express depictions of child sex.

Do you see the particular need to support someone's freedom to make metal music, regular pornography, films with drug use, online roleplayers, teenagers writing fanfiction, etc? What if a few MPs decided they saw no particular need to support your right to comment on HN?

The fact that there are more important battles does not mean this one should be ignored. Matters of justice have little to do with whether you would support the activity, and much more to do with whether you would support the principle. The question I am asking you is whether people should be punished by the state for possession or creation of these drawings, and if so, why? People's lives are literally at risk over these drawings of fictional characters. Going to prison, potentially being put on the register, etc. is no small deal. Suspended sentences are still on your criminal record.

The numbers I was referring to were specifically on drawn fictional non-photorealistic depictions. As such, that included cartoons (like Japanese hentai). Maybe I read the stats incorrectly, though.

[chimeracoder]

> In England, various fictional artworks can be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications act, even possession of some cartoon pornography can be prosecuted under CAJA 2009 s.63. To the dismay of LGBTQ+ and sexual freedom campaigners, even possession of simulated rape pornography is illegal.

The UK is hardly a touchstone of freedom of erotica. It's not just simulated rape - if you look at the full list of things censored under Cameron, it includes a lot of things that would be considered rather dry by American standards (such as most pornography filmed outdoors).

[claudiawerner]

I didn't reference that material because as far as I know, only the production of such pornography within the UK is illegalised, that is to say, it's still fine to possess and view it, download it etc. so long as you don't produce (or even sell?) it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, please.

But yeah, there's very little room for disagreement here, England is known for its ingrained doctrines of legal moralism and legal paternalism.

[AnaniasAnanas]

Possession of certain drawings is also illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornogra...

[claudiawerner]

I already mentioned that in my original comment.

[beobab]

I would contend that there can be harms involved even with porn that you might consider harmless; harms such as addiction, damaged relationships, objectification of partners. Porn can damage minds.

[claudiawerner]

Many things (like alcohol) can be addictive and damage relationships. Who objectifies others should be a personal choice, censorship should not be performed for the purpose of protecting people from thinking in a certain way. Plenty of other information can damage minds too, can't it? Who's to decide which porn is more or less damaging, unless you support a blanket ban on all pornography? Come to think of it, even non-pornographic fiction can damage minds; films involving drug use, James Joyce's Ulysses.

[Jach]

> Who's to decide which porn is more or less damaging

Or just what is meant by 'damage'? Discourse here is unlikely to be a friendly academic discussion on the meaning of words, but instead another instance of the eternal question "Who? Whom?"

[Nasrudith]

That is quite a monoatomically smooth polished and lubricated slope there. Truthful descriptions of somebody's past actions can damage relationships. Pointing out that your partner sleeps with someone else on every business trip can. Should telling you that your partner is cheating on you be a felony then? Should history books be banned because some get the completely wrong message and idolize Hitler and Stalin? And how does one define damage to the mind anyway?

[Nasrudith]

Likely it is over being taken as whataboutism - pointing out shitty behavior of others taken as a defense via deflection instead of a "be vigilant against it elsewhere" message.

[claudiawerner]

It's shocking (and perhaps telling) that Internet users are so cynical that they assume someone to be deflecting when they put forward an argument.