Extreme pornographic writing
House of Lords amendment withdrawn due to lack of time.
An amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill, put forward by Baroness O’Cathain, that dealt with 'extreme pornographic writing' was withdrawn at the last minute.
Earlier, the WGGB had submitted an official reply to the proposed amendment. (Contributors: Tracy Brabin, Edel Brosnan, Isabelle Grey, Jayne Kirkham, Gail Renard, Robert Taylor, Andy Walsh)
The text of the amendment is below. The Guild’s response follows.
After Clause 59
BARONESS O'CATHAIN 177DA
Insert the following new Clause—
"Possession of extreme pornographic writings
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of extreme pornographic writing.
(2) "Extreme pornographic writing" is writing which is both— (a) pornographic, and (b) extreme writing.
(3) Writing is "pornographic" if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where (as found in the person's possession) the writing forms part of a series of writings, the question whether the writing is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to— (a) the writing itself, and (b) (if the series of writings is such as to be capable of providing a context for the writing) the context in which it occurs in the series of writings.
(5) So, for example, where— (a) the writing forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of writings, and (b) having regard to those writings as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the writing may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.
(6) "Extreme writing" is writing which— (a) falls within subsection (7), and (b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(7) Writing falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— (a) an act which threatens a person's life, (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, (c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or (d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the writing would think that any portrayal of such person or animal was realistic.
(8) In this section "writing" means written words (including but not limited to those published or otherwise available on the internet), books, leaflets or other printed matter.
(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).
(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted— (a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or (b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland."
The Guild response:
Let us start by saying that the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain is against censorship in general. The existing laws in this area are strict and extensive so that further development seems unnecessary. The proposed wording is also verbose and clumsy.
The Guild remains unconvinced that readers will copy so-called sordid details found in various writings. Or, to put it another way, “The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.” ~Tommy Smothers
Let us share some our writers’ comments with you:
"What is described here means that we have to go back to the days of closing the bedroom door. King Lear will have to be rewritten – no way can the blinding of Gloucester be seen as not being realistic. What about Casino Royale where Bond is tortured – very graphic and that is genitalia bashing."
"I’m sure most adults have imagination enough to come up with cruel and perverted ways of hurting people of their own, without needing a ‘how to’ book. It’s also worth noting that the vast vast majority of people, while having the capacity for nastiness, prefer to be kind."
"That rules out any Irvine Welsh, Sarah Kane and I’m sure some of us have ‘enjoyed’ DH Lawrence, Joyce and the New Testament... Seems a retrograde step to me…doesn’t the best writing stir emotions and sometimes the groin? Who exactly would they be protecting when there are already laws in place with regard to pornography? Joe Orton’s battles with the censors are coming back to haunt us."
"[Also ruled out would be] Helen Walsh, Bret Easton Ellis, Nabokov, Valerie Solanas, Catherine Briellat, Chan-Wook Park, Jake and Dinos Chapman. This feels like a Canute-like attempt to stem the tide of internet porn, after the courts threw out a case against a man who'd written violent fanfic porn about Girls Aloud. Unless something contravenes existing hate crime or incitement to violence laws, we should leave well enough alone - creating a new category of thought crime is too Orwellian. We already have laws in place for hate crimes or incitement to violence - surely it makes more sense to enforce existing laws than to create new ones that stifle freedom of speech. Recent American experience has also shown that anti-porn laws designed to 'protect women' have a nasty habit of disproportionately silencing female writers, along with GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people) and other non-mainstream voices."
"Any move into this type of censorship is the start of the slippery slope. We fully back Baroness O'Cathain’s right not to read this material, we fully back her right not to like it and to talk of a higher moral plane, in no way can her attempt to limit freedom of speech be a good thing. These are words, they are ideas, they may not be to our liking, but this harks back to the social and intellectual superiority that some felt over Lady Chatterley’s Lover. The masses are not to be trusted. I am concerned at any attempt to limit the freedom of speech that generations have worked so hard to earn. The current labelling and marking of material to allow audiences to choose what they consume are adequate to allow a protection of freedom of speech and the right of audiences to avoid material that they personally may find offensive."
So we think all can see that the Writers' Guild of Great Britain would be against this amendment.
back to top