![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
memevectorHave been grappling for several days now with trying to write a thing for the government on this consultation, "On the possession of extreme pornographic material".
What a tangled intertwangling of subtantive topics the whole area is - I feel like it would take a book to do justice to them all. I'm on my third attempt to construct a succinct summary of my opinions, that wouldn't take me weeks to finish, and my drafts just keep sprouting big paragraphs of essential complexity every time! But I'm gradually making some progress - which is just as well as the deadline for this phase is this Friday.
I've read the Govt consultation document, and some of the material from Liz Longhurst's campaign, and some of the stuff on the Backlash site, and some debates on internet porn in the House of Lords & House of Commons. So far, no analysis I've read satisfies me. Most of the people arguing in favour of the new proposed law seem not to really grasp how the internet works, and most of the people arguing against have i.m.o. weakened their arguments in one way or another by overstatement or by dismissing what to me are valid points. (Backlash citing as a "good example" the one that started off "Blah blah Nanny state blah blah right wing" didn't terribly impress me either.)
Before I started drafting,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wandra and I had a bit of a mash through the general subject area last week, and I've talked/ranted to a couple of other people close to me, which has all helped (thank you). I think my basic problem is that both the law and the general cultural understanding of consent, influence, sex and porn are already internally inconsistent in loads of places, so it feels to me kind of like the foundations are missing and you have to build them first. Like you can't take for granted anything that's already there, because it was probably flawed too.
I've been getting quite frustrated reading the different things already written, partly because it's been taking me so much time and head-space to think it through for myself, I wish I could read someone else's and just go "Yes! Exactly! Thank you!"
Has anyone else had a bash at it?skibbley? (b.t.w. thanks for the heads-up about the whole thing in the first place.)
Update, a few minutes later: My mistake, Backlash just described the "Nanny state" one as "an example" - I can't really argue with that ;-)
Just found a rather well argued letter as well, this one, which is now officially my favourite of the ones I've seen so far.
Update, about 23.30: Here is another good one, at which I chuckled a little bit due to its excellently written pointyness. And hurrah, it's by a proper expert.
What a tangled intertwangling of subtantive topics the whole area is - I feel like it would take a book to do justice to them all. I'm on my third attempt to construct a succinct summary of my opinions, that wouldn't take me weeks to finish, and my drafts just keep sprouting big paragraphs of essential complexity every time! But I'm gradually making some progress - which is just as well as the deadline for this phase is this Friday.
I've read the Govt consultation document, and some of the material from Liz Longhurst's campaign, and some of the stuff on the Backlash site, and some debates on internet porn in the House of Lords & House of Commons. So far, no analysis I've read satisfies me. Most of the people arguing in favour of the new proposed law seem not to really grasp how the internet works, and most of the people arguing against have i.m.o. weakened their arguments in one way or another by overstatement or by dismissing what to me are valid points. (Backlash citing as a "good example" the one that started off "Blah blah Nanny state blah blah right wing" didn't terribly impress me either.)
Before I started drafting,
wandra and I had a bit of a mash through the general subject area last week, and I've talked/ranted to a couple of other people close to me, which has all helped (thank you). I think my basic problem is that both the law and the general cultural understanding of consent, influence, sex and porn are already internally inconsistent in loads of places, so it feels to me kind of like the foundations are missing and you have to build them first. Like you can't take for granted anything that's already there, because it was probably flawed too.I've been getting quite frustrated reading the different things already written, partly because it's been taking me so much time and head-space to think it through for myself, I wish I could read someone else's and just go "Yes! Exactly! Thank you!"
Has anyone else had a bash at it?
skibbley? (b.t.w. thanks for the heads-up about the whole thing in the first place.)Update, a few minutes later: My mistake, Backlash just described the "Nanny state" one as "an example" - I can't really argue with that ;-)
Just found a rather well argued letter as well, this one, which is now officially my favourite of the ones I've seen so far.
Update, about 23.30: Here is another good one, at which I chuckled a little bit due to its excellently written pointyness. And hurrah, it's by a proper expert.
