SEXUAL FREEDOM COALITION
RESPONSE
TO THE
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS’
CONSULTATION PAPER
ON CENSORSHIP
DRAFTED BY DR TUPPY OWENS
ON BEHALF OF THE COORDINATIONS OF THE SFC
1
- OUR BACKGROUND
About the SFC
The Sexual Freedom Coalition is an independent voluntary body
campaigning for the sexual freedom of consenting adults. Formed
in 1996, it is currently run by a team of coordinators. The
SFC helps people in difficulty with the law, offers advise on
policy and holds an annual conference.
Personnel
The SFC coordinators have a wide range of experience with pornography/
We have included stories and situations in order to bring our
arguments to life. We feel it is essential to keep the argument
based firmly in down-to-earth reality rather than becoming academic
and theoretical.
I am the founder of a social club for people with social and
physical disabilities, called Outsiders. Outsiders has members
who live isolated lives and have never had a sexual partner.
Until they find one, they may rely totally on fantasy, pornography
and prostitution for their sexual fulfillment. It is with the
knowledge gained from almost 25 years of Outsiders, that I feel
qualified to comment on behalf of the users. I have written
about pornography for even longer. I starred in two porno films,
one of which was censored and the other banned, with its producer
and director serving time in prison. I have personally been
censored from all sides.
Adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Provided the sex industry, or establishments in question, adhere
to the principles laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (see for example Article 23 (1) which says 'Everyone
has the right to work, to FREE CHOICE OF EMPLOYMENT, to just
and favourable conditions of work.....' and above all the safety,
health and physical well being of those involved are respected
(as stated elsewhere in the declaration) and no other actual
unlawful crime has been committed in the acquisiton of images
or the voluntary choice of profession of those involved, then
there should be no descrimination in the terms of business in
which they are allowed to operate.
Neither should there be morally driven censorship which would
go against Article 18, which expresses 'Everyone has the right
to FREEDOM OF THOUGHT....either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion OR BELIEF'
and moreover, Article 19 states that 'EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT
TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION.........AND TO SEEK, RECEIVE
AND IMPART INFORMATION AND IDEAS THROUGH ANY MEDIA AND REGARDLESS
OF FRONTIERS'. We believe the declaration is now enshrined in
British Law.
However, the SFC does not wish to be insensitive to those in
society who might be offended by sexual imagery, if they have
not explicitily and actively requested these. The same should
be the case with violence, racist images, bigotry etc. The general
public perception, and its sensitivities, needs to be considered
when dealing with broadcasting, public display and mass media.
Article 27 (1) also speaks of 'Everyone has the right to participate
in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts......'
When a sister organisation recently attempted to book venues
in London in order to put on a show already performed at the
ICA, the organisers have been turned down with no real explanation.
General Points
We feel that it is better to have a few people offended or embarrassed,
than a few people sitting in prison for having mistakenly broken
a sex law. The public is largely ignorant about sex, including
the laws. The best way to combat this, and deter people from
taking less appropriate ideas from their fantasy life and trying
to make them real, is to provide good factual education.
When discussing censorship, one of our main concerns is that
the law should not be manipulated by those concerned with moral
principles, rather than be used, as intended, to protect society
from real criminal offences taking place.
Society has moved beyond the old sex laws Repealing these laws
and improving education are ways towards a positive future.
2 - PRINCIPLES
We agree with your principles and feel that your focus is perfect,
with the exception of No 8: Advertising, which is too narrow.
3 - OBSCENE AND INDECENT PUBLICATIONS
It is sad that the recommendations of the Williams Committee
have been ignored until the present day. They condemned material
"whose unrestrictive availability is offensive to reasonable
people by reason of the manner in which it portrays, deals with,
or relates to violence, cruelty or horror, or sexual, faecal
or urinary functions or genital organs".
The SFC would like to see the availability of sexually explicit
material restricted by sale to adults only, just like tobacco
and alcohol, within appropriate context, giving adults the right
to choose.
Pornography, being somewhat of a substitute for sex, needs to
be like sex, i.e. stimulating by sometimes being outrageous,
amazing and shocking. People are not usually aroused by 'nice
fiction" whether it is erotic or not.
The SFC believes that it is healthy to be shocked. We think
pornography can be enhanced by an element of horror, tension,
mess, intensity, power play and extremes.
Users may even need to be disgusted in order to get turned on.
The influence of Christian preaching that sex outside marriage
and masturbation are sinful is very powerful and passed on from
generation to generation. It is responsible for the widespread
guilt in society about self-pleasure and sex for fun. The result
is that many people need sex and porn to appear "dirty"
in order to get off.
In a more open society, people are less likely to buy more extreme
pornography. There is a tendency for more extreme porn to be
popular where the people are repressed.
Question 2
The SFC is not concerned with violent material which is not
sexual in content. That is, unless the material is of sado-masochistic
content, and this should be treated like any other pornography.
We see danger in the confusion among politicians, police and
the general public over the excitement from non-consentual violence
and the sexual turn-on of consensual sado-masochism (S/M). This
confusion leads to some S/M porno being made illegal, especially
when portraying female submission, while violence is glamorised
and accepted. There needs to be much greater understanding and
acceptance of what participants describe as safe, sane and consentual
S/M.
The Sexual Freedom Coalition campaigns only for the rights of
consenting adults. We are thus unable to comment on the age
of consent, provided it is consistant. However, we see the logic
that, if you are allowed to marry, copulate and have homosexual
sex at 16, this should be the age of freedom to see and do as
you wish. However, while we feel people of 16 should be able
to buy pornography, we don't feel so happy about them being
allowed to appear in it.
Question 3. Is there a role for sexually explicit material
as an aid to sex education?
Definitely yes. Sex education should not be censored. Britain
has the highest teenage pregnany rates in the EU, We have a
rise in HIV, Clamydia, Hepatitis and other sexually transmitted
diseases. Female genital mutilation is practised, as a result
of culture and ignorance. We are also witnessing a growth of
unhappiness and depression amongst young people, resulting from
their confusion between sex and attractiveness.
Sex education should use the most clear and effective methods,
including appropriate sexual explicit images as needed.
When AIDS arrived in Europe, the Dutch allowed the screening
of a sexually explicit TV documentary at 6pm, teaching teenagers
how to enjoy mutual masturbation, helping them explore safe
ways of making love.
Britain lagged sadly behind. Years after this Dutch TV show,
Britain actually allowed hoarding adverts for condoms to protect
the public from HIV, and this was only after campaigns to stop
Customs and Excise from banning the import of the adverts from
Germany.
Question 4 Should legitimate controls apply only to
images or also the use of words?
We do not condone any controls either in images or the use of
words, apart from images which were created from illegal acts.
3.10 (b) We need more time to consider the prohibition of material
which gives reason to believe actual physical harm was inflicted
on a person. There is no simple answer to this but we would
like to point out that there is no evidence that snuff movies
have ever been made.
In pornography, the safest way of avoiding exploitation and
illegal acts taking place on the shoot, is to get all the actors
to sign release forms declaring that they consented to all the
sex they engaged in. Openness and legality together with edication
and assertiveness from the actors creates a safer and less exploitative
media. Actors should be empowered to make informed choices about
risk and have a suitably safe working environment.
Images which are obtained through an actual breach of the criminal
law, like rape, torture, murder through asphyxiation for sexual
satisfaction, should not be allowed to be used for commercial
gain. However, this would include the film made about President
Kennedy's assassination which used footage recorded live. Pornography
should perhaps be treated differently. Fantasy images that would
be abusive in real life need special consideration and, once
again, education is essential.
3.11 - dealt with above.
3.12 - Outlawing films which portray rape would
result in sheltering members of society from the horrors of
rape. It would be patronising, and to no good effect.
You don’t get rid of violence, including rape, by pretending
it does not exist.
If some people have things in their heads that turn them on,
however distasteful to others, they do no harm unless they act
on those thoughts.
3.13 Line 7 - You should not use the term "sadism"
out of the context of S/M because this causes confusion. Williams
may have been unaware of S/M, but your Paper should not repeat
his ignorance. The word required here is "cruelty".
Question 5 - Should the law take steps to encourage
'ethical pornography' (the use of condoms. the promotion of
other aspects of health and safety, securing proper conditions
of employment)?
Absolutely yes. The liberalisation of film has already resulted
in steps in this direction. We would like to see pressures taken
off the pornography trade, including:-
• dropping the prohibitive licence fees imposed on sex
establishments, shops and mail order traders, and the power
of local authorities banning the licences completely, which
makes porn unavailable in certain areas of the country
• provide more support to performers who are required
to have a clean bill and health certificate, so that they are
not exploited by private clinics
• relieving the the BBFC of its powers of deciding what
may or may not appear in adult film, videos and DVDs and dropping
their fees. The BBFC should be about classification, not censorship
• see working conditions improved for performers, as is
currently being initiated by the International Union of Sex
Workers
• encouragement to use safer sex in films
Question 6 - we see no reason why sex cinemas
or sex shops should need a separate licence, just planning permission.
Question 7 - No
So long as adult books, magazines and videos clearly state that
they are only for sale to adults, there is no need for any special
licences.
Some Councils now require clubs and events showing striptease
and nude performance to purchase a licence. This can cost as
much as £30,000. A notice has to be displayed at the venue
inviting objections from local residents. Objections can only
be on health and safety grounds, not moral grounds. We fail
to understand the reasoning behind this. The licence takes a
month to obtain and recently the Conway Hall, the South Place
Ethical Society, cancelled a booking during this delay. Thus,
erotic events are being unfairly discriminated against.
Question 7 - is regulation of sex premises justified
in principle?
No, it implies that people who deal in sex are criminals or
irresponsible. In fact, when people are given responsibility,
they behave better.
Question 8 - should local authorities be allowed to
control the number of sex establishments in their area?
No. This creates a ridiculous situation whereby there is no
policy. Some councils. e.g. Croydon, want all sex establishments
to be housed in Soho, whilst Westminster want the establishments
dispersed. The government needs to make up its mind whether
to have properly run red light districts or not. Birmingham
City Council decided, by its own legislation, to create a red
light district next to the National Exhibition Centre, in order
to attract the booking of exhibitions.
Objections to clusters of sex establishments are discriminatory.
A red light district, provided it is run properly, should be
as legitimate as a business district (which probably attracts
more criminals!). A woman who appeared to hold high ideals,
was recently prevented from opening her sex store in the Charing
Cross Road / Tottenham Court Road areas because there were too
many other sex shops there. This seems quite unfair.
We call for the discrimination against sex businesses, events
and sex workers to be made illegal.
If sex shops were encouraged to look more jolly from the outside,
rather than spooky and clinical, fewer people would object.
Plus, with better sex education and fair laws, sex shops would
not be able to get away with selling over-priced tat, and the
image of the shops would improve.
Question 9 - Yes, the community has no greater
right to protection against sex shops than it has against any
other lawful business. There is nothing inherently criminal
in sex, and therefore any sex-related business does not need
specific laws to regulate it. Nor should these businesses be
required to pay extra tax or licence fees.
On the question of expensive licences, these serve to push up
the prices of pornography and sex goods. I know this can be
disastrous for people who rely on it. One disabled man I know,
who was earning £28,000 a year, went badly into debt because
of his pornography "habit". Another man who was unable
to socialise because of his stammer and was on the dole, used
to buy soft porn and use it, throw it away in disgust and then
find himself returning to the store and selecting the very same
magazine days later! Obviously, Outsiders is here to help such
people, but what about the others out there?
Making pornography more expensive by charging outrageous fees
for certification, squeezes out independent, less commercial
producers and makes the trade appeal to the lowest common denominator,
lacking imagination and diversity.
Question 10 - we are against the regulation of sex
shops by local authority AND independent statutory bodies, but
the latter is the less of two evils. The former results in an
elected council playing to the puritan lobby, whilst the latter
involves establishing a national policy.
Question 11 - It is not appropriate to leave matters
to local community standards. Some areas have a group of vocal
kill-joys who would be against sex shops and make it embarrassing
for the people who want them to speak out. This can be extremely
damaging for men who rely on pornography. Consider the situation
in Leeds where a group of feminists persuaded the police to
expose kerb crawlers' names and addresses in the local paper
and tried to educate the men in their "John School"!
This comes from a shop assistant in a British newsagents, "in
the morning the husbands come in and buy the porn and in the
afternoons their wives come in and complain about the porn on
the shop’s shelves!"
Question 12 - Lap dancing and striptease do not need
regulation, apart from ensuring that the performers are treated
fairly - a job which the International Union of Sex Workers,
which is affiliated to the GMB (IUSW Box 27465, London SW2 1YA)
is already involved in.
Their public displays should not be explicit.
These establishments should not be forced to buy expensive licences.
There should be no regulation on stage acts or services, so
long as the acts are not themselves criminal, and safe sex is
adhered to, as well as all other health and safety issues. The
ancient Disorderly Houses Act should be repealed, together with
the other common law offences mention in our Bill.
One extra point. There should be no restrictions on grants and
government supported projects on the grounds that they involve
pornography. One SFC member was declined financial and other
assistance to start a small business because she wished to open
a sex store. Employment bureaus should be allowed to carry adverts
for sex shop assistants, sex workers and erotic performers.
4
- THE CLASSIFICATION OF FILM
AND VIDEO
Films should be allowed to portray both mild and extreme sexual
activity. They should be allowed to portray degrading and dehumanising
activities (as they can already show murder, torture and death).
4.7 Films should not be banned because they
depict violence or sexual activity or crime, so long as the
actors were consenting, and have signed a release form to state
as such.
4.8 The SFC agrees that all films should be
allowed except those which depict sex with persons under 16,
or unconsenting adults. We don’t think people who have
sex with animals should necessarily be criminalised.
4.9 The SFC agrees that there should not be
stricter standards for video than film.
4.10 The SFC is not sure that it should be
an offence to show sexually explicit films to underage people.
Inappropriate situations could be dealt with by the existing
law: the Indecency with Children Act or dealt with without resorting
to the legal system (e.g. through Social Services).
4.11 We agree that local authorities should
have no powers in film and video classification.
5. BROADCASTING
Question 13 - Yes, the time has come to allow
broadcasters total freedom, with the use of logos for sexually
explicit television programmes.
Question 14 - No system of regulation is required.
Questions 15 & 16 - The watershed principle
seems to work for most viewers.
The power of the Department of Culture to ban advertisements
for satellite TV programmes should be removed.
Film makers who make TV shows about sexual matters have the
choice between making an honest programme to be shown later
in the evening, or producing a toned down programme which can
go out at a more popular viewing time.
Programmes with a sexual content should be given a special logo
to warn viewers and parents who don't want their children to
view them. This warns people they are watching sex programmes
when flicking channels.
People who are offended by sex should be given no more protection
than people offended by violence, religion or body fascism (prejudice
against anything but the body beautiful). We would support a
code of conduct for mainstream media that addresses all of these
issues equally.
Question 17
People should be allowed to subscribe to channels which show
uncensored films, without exception. We have already commented
on porno which "exploits for sexual purposes unlawful acts".
6 - RACIAL HATRED AND HATE SPEECH
Outside our remit.
7 - BLASPHEMY
We agree with the Law Commission Paper 154 that the Common Law
Offences of Blasphemous Libel and Blasphemy should be abolished.
The statutary offence has already been repealed.
The law against blasphemy was used by anti-gay bigots to silence
gay publications and speakers.
8 - ADVERTISING
Question 19 - Restrictions on advertising should depend
on where the campaign is being run. Advertising should be restrained
in public places but not restrained in relevant publications.
We think you need to expand on this.
The Advertising Standards Authority is over-sensitive to complaint:
they regard as few as twenty letters of complaint, to be representative
of public opinion
!
Dr Tuppy
Owens
on behalf of the Sexual Freedom Coalition
