A. The Net

1. SafetyNet becomes Internet Watch Foundation; RSACi dropped
2. The Poison Spreads to Europe

1. Savoy Books - the revenge of James Anderton
2. Baby-pictures, sex education, and "Rosie" - the dirty-minded censors
3. Boots the Chemists - your censor at home
4. Spanner Goes to Europe
5. Does your MP "get it"?

A. The Net

1. SafetyNet becomes Internet Watch Foundation; RSACi dropped

   The "voluntary, self-regulatory" system for the net in the UK has dropped the "Safety Net" name after being advised that it was already in use by another company. They have settled on a new name and posted a press release early in the first week of December, at www.iwf.org.uk

   Meanwhile, Clive Feather of Demon told readers on Usenet that, having looked for ways to make RSACi usable, they didn't feel its flaws could be overcome. In a post to alt.censorship, demon.service, and uk.net on 29 November, he said:

   "The UK industry appears to be in broad agreement that RSACi contains various deficiencies, and is not the most suitable scheme for rating material for UK readers. The Internet Watch Foundation has agreed to develop a UK-specific rating scheme for this purpose; they will shortly be appointing an Advisory Panel from a broad range of interests to oversee and review this process. Demon Internet welcomes these developments, and we do not intend to take any further action concerning rating of WWW pages until this scheme is complete and we are able to examine the competing alternatives. We hope this will defuse concerns about the specifics of the RSACi scheme." (4 Dec 96)

   For the background to this story, click here.

2. The Poison Spreads to Europe

   According to issue #26 of .net magazine:

   "The European Community is encouraging member nations to follow Britain's lead with regards to preventing access to illegal material on the Net. Law firm Denton Hall will look into the feasibility of jamming or censoring pornographic or racist material in honour of the 1997 'the year against racism'."

   You or your organization might be able to make a difference, though, if you are prepared to make submissions to Europe:

   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
   Representation in the United Kingdom
   WE/36/96 - 17 October 1996

   Two policy papers were published by the European Commission outlining plans to "protect children" from harmful materials, such as pornography, on the internet (and other electronic media). They suggest that, with the collusion of providers, filtering software and "self-regulation" can limit the "risks". The intent is to impose universal regulation on all member states. It is stressed that cooperation is essential to make the programme work and to eliminate potential "distortions" in competition. (We suspect this means that if some states do not comply, they will have an "unfair" advantage in being able to attract customers who don't want to be censored.)

B. Real Life

1. Savoy Books - the revenge of James Anderton

   In 1991 the police raided Savoy Books after someone brought to their attention that one of Savoy's publications contained an unflattering portrait of a character who strongly resembled police chief James Anderton, the cop who became notorious for his conversations with God. The novel Lord Horror and the related comic Meng & Ecker were siezed, although the book was eventually returned. But Savoy has been trying to get a jury trial for judgement of the comic ever since. In late August the High Court denied them the right to a jury trial.

   Michael Butterworth of Savoy denied that the material was obscene. In a press release he said:

   "Only in Manchester could police seize works of this calibre, the local Crown Prosecution Service bring charges against them, and the magistrate decide they are obscene and order their destruction - without a jury."

   Butterworth was particularly scathing about the circumventing of due process:

   "The prosecutors decide how, where, when and before whom we are tried. We have no say in the matter. Mr. [Stuart] Ashman [of the Crown Prosecution Service] even admitted in the High Court that he had not wished to have the case heard before a jury because he stood little chance of winning.

   "... In reaching this decision the High Court has shown that magistrates, in this area of law, have been given dictatorial powers. None of them in Manchester have any idea what the comics are about - nor do they care. They just want to shut us down."

   He doesn't plan to let them, though. "If the police raid again, we will fight back," he said.

2. Baby-pictures, sex education, and "Rosie" - the dirty-minded censors

   Meanwhile, the child porn scare has borne some pretty rotten fruit. Readers of British newspapers may have been surprised when TV presenter Julia Somerville found herself under investigation by the police for innocent photographs of her daughter playing in the bath, but anti-censorship activists know that such investigations go on all the time with lesser-known victims. Somerville's fame probably kept her from undergoing the torments that beset ordinary people when they make the mistake of thinking innocent nudity in children is just that.

   The police announced last year that they were giving up on attempts to prosecute artist-photographer Graham Ovendon for his photographs of nude children, no doubt because so many other artists and gallery owners all over the world were willing to speak up in his defense. But parents are still in serious jeopardy from dirty-minded cops and invasive social workers.

   But in the name of "protecting children", the much-applauded sex education book Show Me! has been declared "child porn", as has a magazine published by an arts lawyer that discusses the numerous cases in which mothers and artists, among others, have their lives disrupted by these investigations and prosecutions. Both have been the victims of successful prosecutions this year and last. And now the naturist magazine Health & Efficiency is being prosecuted.

   And in September of 1996, the Hayward Gallary invited the police to approve of the content of their showing of Robert Mapplethorpe's photos. The cops instantly seized on his image of a young girl, "Rosie", and declared it child porn. Rosie herself, now the proprieter of a cafe in West London, expressed dismay that this innocent picture taken of her as a child could be seen by prurient-minded police as pornographic.

   Indeed. The anti-child porn crowd seems unable to look at images of children without seeing pornography; they have sexualized kids to such an extent that the very idea of an innocent image no longer exists.

3. Boots the Chemists - your censor at home

   According to a story in the Sun of 2 October, design consultant Kath Harmer experienced a little on-the-spot censorship when she took her honeymoon snapshots to Britain's best-known chemist (drug store) chain to be developed.

   The Sun quotes her as saying:

   "We went on a tour of Pompeii to soak up some culture. The guide pointed out the wall painting. It shows Priapus measuring his huge apparatus on a set of scales. The painting is fantastic but it's also extremely funny. All the tourists tittered and I had to get a snap of it. I wanted a keepsake of our amusing moment. But when the snaps came back I only got 35 out of 36.

   "I went through the negatives and saw he'd been censored. I'm upset at such stupidity. It was only a bit of fun."

   The explanation from Boots was not reassuring:

   "Our staff are at liberty not to print pictures they think are in bad taste."

   We are no longer talking here about illegal material or photographs that are suspected (however absurdly) of having some relationship to child abuse, but of "bad taste", a far more dubious basis for passing judgement on people's holiday pictures. Boots, and their developer, Kodak, were also the source of the scandal involving the photos of Julia Somerville's daughter; have they set themselves up as the moral guardians of Britain?

   Ms. Harmer seemed to know exactly who had the dirty minds:

   "I can't believe people can be so small-minded. It wasn't pornography - I've seen the picture of this chap in history books read by children."

4. Spanner Goes to Europe

   Strange as it may seem, Operation Spanner started off as a police hallucination that they had uncovered some sort of "child porn" or "snuff movie" gang. In the end it turned out that one of these consenting adults had merely videoed some of the festivities and passed out copies (free) to the participants, but when the case was originally reported in the press - and despite the fact that the stories they printed made clear this was not about pornography - the headlines in certain "quality" dailies told us that the country's largest porn ring had been tried and convicted.

   The progressive community was shaken by the announcement of the astonishing verdict that made SM practice - or even leaving a love bite - a criminal "assault". To our amazement, not only had new law been made on the hoof, but some of the participants had apparently been found guilty of aiding and abetting an assault on themselves. Feminists Against Censorship immediately began putting pressure on the National Council for Civil Liberties ("Liberty") to take up the case. Countdown on Spanner was formed by SM activists to highlight the issues and collect support for appeals.

   Earlier this year, the European Commission granted the Spanner defendants a right to appeal in the European Court.

   Countdown on Spanner's latest press release follows:

   COUNTDOWN ON SPANNER c/o Central Station, 37 Wharfdale Road, London N1 9SE, UK email: spanner@honour.demon.co.uk 14 October 1996: PRESS RELEASE S/M CASE GOES TO EUROPEAN COURT On Monday 21 October the European Court of Human Rights will hear the cases of Roland Jaggard, Anthony Brown and the late Colin Laskey, who were imprisoned under the assault law for private consensual sexual activity where no-one required medical attention. The English courts had ruled that consent was no defence to "assault" if the motive was "the satisfaction of a sadomasochistic libido". The outcome of the hearing will determine in effect whether consensual sadomasochism is legal in Britain. Countdown on Spanner spokesperson Val Langmuir said today: "The legal team, led by Lord Anthony Lester, has put forward a detailed case that demonstrates that the Spanner convictions were unreasonable and an improper use of the courts. We just hope that the European Court will uphold our right to a private life. "We consider that the Spanner case was a huge waste of taxpayers' money and police time, and a gross invasion of privacy. In the face of the AIDS epidemic, S/M is increasingly popular as a way for consenting adults to enjoy safer sex. If we lose the appeal, the police will have a mandate to squander more resources in the harassment of couples who practise S/M as part of their sexual relationships. Wouldn't their time be better spent catching real criminals?" Countdown on Spanner founder Kellan Farshea said: "It is clear from recent court judgments and updates to prosecution guidelines that the Spanner case is a gross miscarriage of justice and shows how out of touch the British judiciary are." BACKGROUND This year, the Law Commission, following extensive consultation with experts and members of the public, recommended that consent to S/M sex is valid, unless serious disabling injury results. In R v Wilson, Court of Appeal 1996 (the "Doncaster Bottom Branders" case), a man who had branded his initials onto his wife's buttocks had his conviction for ABH quashed. The judge ruled that the marks caused were a "desirable bodily adornment", yet these marks were no less severe than those caused in Brown (the "Spanner" case). The 1994 Crown Prosecution Service guidelines define "Actual Bodily Harm" as a moderately severe injury, i.e. one which requires stitches. Had these guidelines been followed in Brown, none of the defendants could have been charged.

5. Does your MP "get it"?

   On 9 October, the Cambridge branch of the National Council for Civil Liberties ("Liberty") held a meeting called "Politics of the Internet: Access, Privacy, Censorship". One of the speakers was the local (Labour) MP, and attending FAC supporter James Hall found her statements particularly illuminating (and we were particularly interested in his last paragraph):

   "A couple of gems from Anne Campbell; its always good to know that our leaders understand the issues and have thought them through:

   "She has worked to make the 'net as accessible to her constituents as possible (terminals in libraries etc.) as she doesn't want a non-accessing underclass - but sees no irony in stating that `of course' some groups or some material must be excluded. Sounds a bit like "everyone should see it as long as I approve of it". The group quoted were (of course these days) pedophiles - she didn't seem quite capable of grasping that however distasteful the activities of a particular section of society, if we unthinkingly label them as undeserving of the normally accepted rights the principle is established and can be extended to any other group we decide to scapegoat (as of course it should be in the case of the disgusting and perverted gays, trade unionists, single parents, green activists, commies, socialists ... ).

   "In her summary she stated that she had had correspondence from people opposing censorship - but as there were many such letters this was obviously "organised" and she therefore ignored it. How, I wonder, does she think the National Viewers and Listeners Association, for instance, manages to have an influence so disproportional to its membership? Anyway, its good to know that M.P.'s listen to the views of their constituents - even if only when agreeing with them."

   Indeed, when NVLA bombards legislators and the media with complaints about movies they've never seen, it is treated as a groundswell of support for censorship. The anti-censorship forces are not nearly so organized - most of the letters objecting to censorship that we see in the newspapers come from people we've never heard of.

   Would it occur to Ms. Campbell that there are a lot of people out there who just independently don't like it when they see yet another news story reporting that more and more media will be put out of reach?