Myles Jackman
September 9, 2015 6:48 AM Subscribe
One lawyer’s crusade to defend extreme pornography. Myles Jackman is Britain’s leading obscenity lawyer. But he does not merely defend the accused: his life’s great plan and purpose is to rid this country once and for all of its laws criminalising extreme pornography – laws that he regards as morally and socially iniquitous. (contains descriptions of sex and pornography)
I can't believe Uncle Grandpa makes porn. 😖
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:33 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:33 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Love this, thanks. (And I wonder wtf it says about me that I want to share it with so many people from my professional past - from journalism professors who teach about the First Amendment to erotica publishers.)
The examples given in the actual trials do sound rather extreme (at least until the tiger turns out to be fake, lol), but they also mention the laws Britain passed in 2014 outlawing depiction of, among other things, urination, female ejaculation, and face-sitting. It's easy to forget, while reading about things that disgust you personally, that there is a real battle to be fought. I think he's spot on when he says that the laws are classist and sexist.
posted by sunset in snow country at 7:34 AM on September 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
The examples given in the actual trials do sound rather extreme (at least until the tiger turns out to be fake, lol), but they also mention the laws Britain passed in 2014 outlawing depiction of, among other things, urination, female ejaculation, and face-sitting. It's easy to forget, while reading about things that disgust you personally, that there is a real battle to be fought. I think he's spot on when he says that the laws are classist and sexist.
posted by sunset in snow country at 7:34 AM on September 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Porn is interesting in that a wide variety of body types and sexualities are celebrated / fetishized. The mainstream crap is just the tip of the iceberg.
posted by Nevin at 7:57 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 7:57 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
It really is a great read, excellently written and astutely observed, with a steady supply of surprises and the stamp of authenticity. Too many good quotes to post here.
The UK obscenity laws are themselves obscene. Many of the videos you can stream in seconds from Youporn and the like are enough to put you in jail - it's not just the things that even experienced porn consumers would consider 'extreme'. The law is all the bad things the article says, and there is no need for it - where harm is actually done, other laws suffice.
The BDSM scene (in London at least) is hugely responsible and self-policing - everyone I know in it cares very much that anybody who feels the want or need to be involved is supported, advised and helped to understand risk and appropriate behaviour. Criminalising aspects of this is actively harmful in so many ways.
Myles Jackman is a hero. He deserves - and needs, by the sound of it - practical support.
posted by Devonian at 8:18 AM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
The UK obscenity laws are themselves obscene. Many of the videos you can stream in seconds from Youporn and the like are enough to put you in jail - it's not just the things that even experienced porn consumers would consider 'extreme'. The law is all the bad things the article says, and there is no need for it - where harm is actually done, other laws suffice.
The BDSM scene (in London at least) is hugely responsible and self-policing - everyone I know in it cares very much that anybody who feels the want or need to be involved is supported, advised and helped to understand risk and appropriate behaviour. Criminalising aspects of this is actively harmful in so many ways.
Myles Jackman is a hero. He deserves - and needs, by the sound of it - practical support.
posted by Devonian at 8:18 AM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
(Incidently, the author of the piece, novellst Edward Docx, seems to have just started writing for the Guardian, and only has three other pieces - all book reviews - up there. They're all worth reading. I'm seeking out more of his stuff...)
posted by Devonian at 8:36 AM on September 9, 2015
posted by Devonian at 8:36 AM on September 9, 2015
I figure obscenity laws are always going to exist as a charge of last resort when nothing else will stick, sort of a 'yeah I screwed up every other part of this case, but you're still going to jail' thing.
posted by Mooski at 9:07 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Mooski at 9:07 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Can we at least all agree that maybe animal crush porn can remain against the law, though?
Trigger warning: It's an Ars Technica link, but, holy shit. Bad things being done to small animals, described but not shown.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:24 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Trigger warning: It's an Ars Technica link, but, holy shit. Bad things being done to small animals, described but not shown.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:24 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Can we at least all agree that maybe animal crush porn can remain against the law, though?
As Jackman says multiple times in the piece, "Consent. Consent. Consent!"
posted by Etrigan at 9:30 AM on September 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
As Jackman says multiple times in the piece, "Consent. Consent. Consent!"
posted by Etrigan at 9:30 AM on September 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Can we at least all agree that maybe animal crush porn can remain against the law, though?
You don't need obscenity laws for that; bog standard animal cruelty laws suffice.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:32 AM on September 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
You don't need obscenity laws for that; bog standard animal cruelty laws suffice.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:32 AM on September 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
Popular speech doesn't need protecting nearly as much as the unpopular stuff.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 12:39 PM on September 9, 2015
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 12:39 PM on September 9, 2015
No, simply possessing or consuming animal crush videos should not be illegal.
Filming them should be evaluated as some kind of collaboration or participation in animal cruelty. It will usually qualify.
Videos are videos. Reality is reality. It's an important distinction.
Warning, by the way: That Ars Technica link has a really revolting detailed description of the content of the crush video in question. It grossed me out, and I'm not easily grossed out. I'm not the only one, either; many Ars Technica commenters were complaining about it. And I've never seen them do that.
posted by Hizonner at 12:55 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Filming them should be evaluated as some kind of collaboration or participation in animal cruelty. It will usually qualify.
Videos are videos. Reality is reality. It's an important distinction.
Warning, by the way: That Ars Technica link has a really revolting detailed description of the content of the crush video in question. It grossed me out, and I'm not easily grossed out. I'm not the only one, either; many Ars Technica commenters were complaining about it. And I've never seen them do that.
posted by Hizonner at 12:55 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Damn it, they corrected the typo I noticed earlier - the line previously read The Peacock material included variously violent scenes, such as a man being punched in the testicles, which the jury were required to watch in order to come their verdict.
posted by Molesome at 2:21 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Molesome at 2:21 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older Better Living Through Television | LSU, Tenure, and Profanity in the Classroom Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I can't believe I wasted one of my genie wishes on seeing this gag brought to life.
posted by dr_dank at 7:21 AM on September 9, 2015 [13 favorites]