Foregone Conclusions In Search Of Evidence: Yet Another British Government Moral Panic

The head of the newly-announced ‘review’ into the effects of adult entertainment sounds suspiciously as though she has already made her mind up on the subject.

You might think that an ‘independent’ review that is headed by someone who has already expressed strong opinions on the subject and has already declared it as “damaging and degrading” is not going to be very independent at all, but that’s exactly what we have with the new study into the effects of pornography that the British government is undertaking. First announced in December, the full details were announced today and they are exactly what you might expect.

The British government, under whatever political party might be in charge at any particular time, is obsessed with ‘reviewing’ the laws on pornography and then tightening them, regardless of whether or not the evidence suggests they need it or not. In the past, expert research into the effects of pornography had not generally reached the conclusions that the politicians wanted. Academic and evidentiary studies have generally found that there is no evidence of any harm being caused by porn, even the most extreme porn. We should note that we are talking here about the sort of porn that involves consenting adults, a very important point that has often been blurred over the years as politicians and campaigners have sought to blur the lines between this material and child sexual abuse (CSA) imagery, bestiality material and the fictional world of the snuff movie. When you want to convince people that the rather banal adult material that they are used to seeing is somehow inherently dangerous, it’s much easier to do so when you can mix in the most appalling criminal activity and muddy the waters.

This new ‘review’, headed by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer who is not noted as an expert in the subject but who has made clear her qualifications as far as the government is concerned by stating “Extreme pornography can have a damaging impact – we owe it to our children and indeed to the whole of society to put the guard rails back in place”.  Should you think that this might be simply an unfortunate slip of the tongue, today also saw an article by her in The Times, headed ‘Extreme porn is spreading and the law isn’t keeping up’, with the opening paragraph offering the apocalyptic claim that “online, the industry has diversified and expanded. Such exposure has undeniably harmed our children and influenced relationships, affecting society more widely. We are still failing to eradicate pornography that is either illegal or creates damaging and degrading attitudes in the real world, particularly towards women, girls and those in same-sex relationships. This doubtless sows some of the seeds of violence and misogyny endemic in society.” ‘Undeniably’. ‘Doubtless’. This does not sound like the commentary of someone who is going to wait for the evidence to come in before reaching a foregone conclusion.

We should note that ‘extreme’ pornography is already very illegal to produce, sell and possess in the UK. It’s a law that has been used a great deal by police forces and courts – far more than was ever intended when the legislation was passed. It is hardly ` law that is under-enforced or neglected, nor is it an offence that the accused can easily wriggle out of. Evidence suggests that far more innocent people have been convicted than guilty ones acquitted, usually because defence lawyers are woefully unfamiliar with the law and either mistakenly convince their clients to plead guilty or offer such a feeble defence that a conviction is inevitable. So just what is this ever-expanding and publicly available ‘extreme porn’ that Baroness Bertin is referring to? Well, we don’t know. Her article in The Times is remarkably vague on the matter but her suggestion that it is material that is “either illegal or creates damaging and degrading attitudes in the real world, particularly towards women, girls and those in same-sex relationships“ (our emphasis) should be worrying. Let’s leave aside her odd suggestion that gay porn is especially damaging to those who watch it (because what else could her reference to same-sex relationships mean, other than being a desperate attempt to make her reactionary right-wing moral panic seem like a liberal Woke crusade?); it seems clear that she wants a clampdown on legal porn. This comes just five years after protests and legal cases forced the Crown Prosecution Service to loosen the obscenity laws to allow BDSM, watersports and other kinky acts that I assume people like Bertin will consider to be ‘degrading’. We should all find this a matter of concern.

Indeed, while the press coverage of this ‘review’ has focused on illegal material, this seems to be the mask hiding the true intentions. After all, illegal material is already illegal. People involved in non-consensual porn, CSA imagery, sex trafficking and other criminal activities are already breaking the law and face long periods of imprisonment if caught – it’s hard to see how we can tighten those rules in any meaningful way that expands on where those laws currently are (while hysterical claims might have you believe otherwise, AI-generated imagery is already covered by existing legislation) or what legally produced adult content has to do with it. And the Online Safety Act – itself a heavy-handed piece of legislation that takes a sledgehammer approach to internet porn and freedom of expression – was only passed late last in 2023, after years of preparation. If there was enough new evidence of harm caused by access to adult material to justify legal changes, why wasn’t it dealt with in that bill as it worked its way through the legislative process?

Bertin says that the review will talk to the adult industry, law enforcement and the public – though why the latter group really matter is a little hard to understand. Unless we agree that laws should be based on public opinion rather than evidence (which, of course, they increasingly are), then the easily manipulated thoughts of the person on the street answering what may well be very slanted questions are irrelevant. I’ll be curious to see who in the adult industry is consulted – history tells us that it might well be the publicity-hungry producers of self-proclaimed ‘ethical porn’ who have often been only too happy to throw their rivals under the bus, somehow believing that any new laws will miraculously not affect them. Past evidence suggests that, in any case, the adult industry will be ignored in favour of evidence-free hyperbole from anti-porn campaigners.

There is extensive research material out there about the effects of porn – admittedly, some of it contradictory and some of it that has been clearly written with an agenda (the latter being the sort of thing that governments are especially keen on). But the consensus from serious studies, rather awkwardly, remains the same on the whole – there is no evidence that porn causes any significant harm. There’s no evidence that it doesn’t either, but you don’t convict on a lack of proof. You might disapprove of sexually explicit material. It might deeply offend you. That doesn’t make it dangerous though, and if we start legislating against things that we are upset and disgusted by, that can lead us down a very dangerous path where the powers that be can outlaw anything that enough people find offensive – ideas, beliefs, philosophies and cultures.

This new war on porn has all the signs of a moral panic whipped up by an unpopular government as a way of placating the right-wing moralists. It seems to be a conclusion that has already been reached, going through the motions to make sure that the ‘research’ justifies that conclusion, knowing that porn is something that no one wants to be seen to be defending. It has nothing to do with protecting children, women or gay people, but feels instead like the first step in a greater attempt to control what we see and roll back the limited sexual and censorial freedoms that Britain has only enjoyed for the last 23 years. I’m sure that the police, the politicians and the press are all in favour of that – but we should do everything we can to fight against it.

DAVID FLINT

Like what we do? Support us and help us do more!