May 27, 2016 | Sex & Society

Report finds that UK's extreme porn ban is stupid

A new report by the libertarian Adam Smith Institute concludes that Britain's prohibitions on "extreme porn," in effect since 2009, are socially useless and unduly target sexual minorities for activities that are harmless.

According to the law, banned materials must be intended for sexual arousal, realistic and "grossly obscene." In  addition, they must depict at least one of the following: 

- Acts of non-consensual penetration 
- An act which threatens a person’s life 
- An act likely to cause serious harm to the breasts, genitals or anus 
- Bestiality
- Necrophilia

Report author Nick Cowan points out that a significant minority of the British population enjoy sexually aggressive fantasy scenarios but do not pose a specific risk of committing violent or sexual offences. While there is some evidence claiming a correlation between individual use of pornography and sexual aggression, other evidence suggests this is not a causal relationship and that, if anything, increased access to pornography can actually reduce measurable social harms.

The reason for the legislation was to reduce violence against women, but there is no evidence it has had such an effect. There are many other ways to reduce violence against women through criminal justice, education and economic reform. 

The report points to the United States as an example of a better way, where the doctrine of free speech shows that it is possible to simultaneously fight damaging forms of expression (like actual rape and child pornography) and maintain strong protections for innocuous fantasies. 

The UK is now primed to introduce another level of Internet censorship, requiring porn sites to verify users are over 18 by having them submit ID such as their  mobile phone number of social insurance number.

It's not clear if the new rules will affect free sites that aren't based in the UK, such as BananaGuide, which has no intension of asking visitors for ID.

We really do have to ask, in the year 2016, should Parliament be legislating sexual morality?