Discourses of Censorship
On 9 April 2008 London South Bank University hosted a seminar on “Extreme” Pornography and Discourses of Censorship whose speakers included Professor Julian Petley (Brunel), Clarissa Smith (Sunderland), Alexandra Dymock (speaking for backlash) and Consultant Psychiatrist Martin Baggaley, the latter speaking on “Links between extreme pornography and psychiatric disorder – much conjecture but little evidence”.
Lords thanked by backlash
Deborah Hyde as backlash spokesperson wrote to members of the House of Lords who had questioned the Government’s assumptions during debates in March 2008, thanking them and summarising the reasons for further changes.
Young Lawyers Debate Censorship
Deborah Hyde argued at the Trinity College Law Society in October 2007 that anti-porn laws ignore
New law will impede efforts to curb real acts of abuse
Understand the unintended and undesirable consequences of the proposals as currently drafted.
Women say “NO” to Government ban on “violent” pornography
Women across Britain reject today’s presentation in the House of Commons of the Criminal Justice Bill 2006-7, which will make possession of certain kinds of consensually-produced porn punishable with three years in prison.
Experts speak out
spoken out against illiberal government policies. NHS clinician Dr Popovic haspublished an article in the Journal of Sexual and Relationship Therapy, severely critiquing the “violent pornography” proposal, while Dr Barker, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at London South Bank University, told backlash that the planned legislation will promote sexual ignorance and “may actually increase the risk of physical damage” among the 30% of people admitting to a kinky component in their sex lives and fantasies.
Previous Press Releases
Backlash tells Academic Conference new UK Porn Law will Criminalise Millions – for No Benefit.
November 2006 Plans to criminalise possession of pornography are hypocritical.
“Government proposals to criminalise the possession of ‘violent pornography’ will do nothing to reduce real crime. They will treat consenting adults like children. And they run the risk of imposing much wider limits on freedom of speech than they intend.”