A year ago, the hideous ISP filters came into force. Although they had been sold as “porn filters”, they ended up blocking all sorts of things that had nothing to do with porn, from drug and self-harm information to nudity, even in non-sexual contexts. Initially, there was a spike of public outrage, but quickly the issue fell into the swamp of identity politics. On discovering that various gay and trans sites were blocked, the outrage became about homophobia and transphobia. ISPs moved to quickly unblock sites that had been identified by the press, and the media lost interest. The filters remained in place, and still today, up to 20% of sites are blocked by them. What could have become a broad-based movement for free speech fizzled out.
On Monday, a new law came into place, extending DVD censorship controls on to Internet videos. None of this was new or unexpected. The censorship rules which have caused so much outrage this week have been in place for many years.
The new law – which I explained on this blog – is probably the greatest attack on free expression that the UK has seen since the BBFC was empowered, in 1984, to censor all video works before they could be released. One of the BBFC’s first policy decisions was to ban all explicit sex on video. And so, the UK became one of the few democratic countries whose population was banned from legally buying porn on DVD, until this rule was eventually challenged by the porn industry in 2000. Forced to accept explicit sex acts, the BBFC (along with the police and CPS) clung to as much power as possible, and still refused to approve many, many “niche” sex acts on DVD.
By mid-decade, this barely mattered any more. Broadband Internet connections made DVD increasingly redundant, and likewise the BBFC, which saw its revenues steadily fall. Pete Johnson, a BBFC manager, tried to reverse this decline by introducing the BBFC Online scheme in 2007. But this had no statutory backing, and never took off.
In 2010, Johnson moved from the BBFC to head a new regulator, ATVOD, and (via a complex use/misuse of EU law), was empowered to implement regulations for VoD sites. His first – and only significant – action was to implement onerous age-verification requirements for UK porn sites: rules that were not implemented anywhere else in Europe. As a result, many businesses (including my own) closed, and others (such as Playboy’s UK operation) moved overseas, shedding jobs in the UK.
The new law adds power to ATVOD’s existing regulations, and for the first time, enforces the BBFC’s R18 rules online. This year’s fashion among the new-left has been to label everything sexist: toys are sexist, and computer games are sexist, and that comedian is sexist, and he’s sexist, and you’re sexist, and that tree is sexist… and so of course, by cherry-picking BBFC rules, the new law was also deemed to be sexist. Not a huge step towards Chinese-style Internet censorship that will harm everybody’s right to access information. Sexist.
So yes, it’s true (as well as ludicrous) that female ejaculation – aka squirting – is one of the many acts now banned, and easy to assume this is sexism (since, of course, male ejaculation is still allowed to be seen). In fact, within the BBFC’s reasoning process – which makes sense within its own, screwed-up logic – this makes perfect sense. The powers-that-be have deemed urination in a sexual context to be unacceptable, and since the evidence as to the nature of squirting is still far from conclusive, they have also banned that. Commentators have also complained that gagging on cocks is still approved; but in fact, the BBFC will cut such scenes if they are deemed to be “potentially life-threatening”. And they will allow similar acts to be carried out by a woman with a strap-on. And the ban on face-sitting isn’t an attempt by The Patriarchy to attack female domination, any more than the ban on strangulation of female models is an attack on male domination. The rules may be extremely stupid, but they’re not sexist.
Although the most immediate casualties of the law will be fetish sites, it’s not especially about targeting fetish either – that just happens to be the first thing in the way of the bulldozer. As already mentioned, the BBFC tried as hard to ban “vanilla” sex as it did to ban kink. It’s just that it lost that particular battle in court.
So what is this about? As the name of our campaign suggests, it’s about both Sex and Censorship. It’s odd that almost nobody noticed what actually happened on Monday: well over 99% of the world’s websites are now technically illegal here in the UK. Not because of the R18 thing, but the other part: the one requiring sites to validate a visitor’s age before they’re allowed to see any naughty bit.
There are multiple interests here: anti-sex moralists (of both religious and feminist varieties) who are truly outraged by sex, and want it all banned; vested interests that stand to earn money and power from censorship (ATVOD and the BBFC, for example); and authoritarian interests that are looking to find excuses to block online content. In the latter case, porn is just one of a number of excuses, as are terrorism and copyright theft. Those familiar with Orwell will recognise that the British state, liberal on the surface, is deeply authoritarian beneath.
This week’s public outrage is an opportunity to build the movement for free expression to a new level, and it would be a shame if certain “It’s all about meeeee!” narratives were allowed to distract from that.
The new law is actually a means to an end, not an end in itself. A process that began (suitably) in 1984 is still rolling along. If you would like to support as we build the case against censorship, please join our list or even send a donation, large or small. Next year is going to be “interesting” for the UK, and not in a good way.
13 thoughts on “It’s About Censorship, Not Sexism”
It’s pointless talking about this inside the industry. The UK porn production and publishing industry is tiny. And there will be no effect on consumption. The consumer doesn’t care, the industry is too small to make a splash and no one listens to pornographer complaining about porn censorship.
The only way to get this changed is to reveal the waste of Government money, time and loss of jobs to females who work in the industry.
In the mainstream press.
Is there a way to judge whether your website is being blocked by ISPs? My pro-stripping website has had low readership figures recently (although it was never a huge website with tons of followers anyway). Its aim is to provide information on lapdancing, working in the clubs and visiting them. I’m worried that if I contact the providers and they are unaware of it they may automatically put me on a list, thereby first time dancers and newbie customers won’t be able to find me.
I’m deeply sorry to hear that your business was not only affected but shut down. Such a shame.
Yes, try blocked.org.uk – it’ll tell you if and where you’re blocked
UK parents should have the option to decide what appears on the children’s computers.
They always have had that option: parental control software on PCs, Macs and now on iPhones, iPads and Android devices. ATVOD’s argument is that many parents choose not to filter their children’s devices, and so the state must step in. In other words, “parents aren’t to be trusted”.
The Indy is making this news, see if they will listen
I think the media lost interest in filters because they saw that no one was using them so they saw no point in reporting them
I agree that the main issue here is censorship, not sexism, and that the discussion shouldn’t be derailed by identity politics; but one of the effects of the new regulations has been to introduce a sexist set of double standards, which must surely be a shot in the foot for certain well-known SWERF ‘feminist’ groups that have campaigned for greater censorship!
Let’s put it this way: if someone like Suzanne Moore, writing for a newspaper like the Guardian, has come out AGAINST these measures, it just serves to demonstrate that there’s plenty of opposition to them on the feminist left.
Censorship of who, viewer or UK producers?
This is about bureaucrats creating work to look busy. The end result will be an effect on producers as consumers stay unaffected.
We of all people should know it’ almost impossible to police the Internet from inside a country. They can’t even track bullies and terrorists.
Is live cam included in the rules?
Comments are closed.