To the Ministry's main lobby The Ministry Blog
concert setlists

29 April, 2008

The other boot has a 6" heel

First 'authorities' obtain the technical ability and right to identify and track individuals.

For our own good, of course.

Then 'authorities', now able to enforce the consensus morality, decide what we can look at.

For our own good, of course.

For the record, if the ban does specifically apply to the four categories of extreme p*orn noted in the BBC article's sidebar, and no others, I wouldn't mind. Much like ID cards, the problem is in 'function creep' and interpretation – what will be covered by the new law, say, five years from now? How about the image accompanying the article? A pierced tongue is dangerously close to certain peoples' definition of 'mutilation'.

There are certain activities I consider repulsive, and I've never quite understood the attraction of p*rn, but my morality shouldn't restrict the right of others to engage in them (or view the results), only objective issues of participants' safety, and when that comes to consensual s&m, for example, that's difficult to regulate.

I suppose that's my key point: there may need to be some way of ensuring participants' safety in the production of p*rn, but it's absolutely no business of society if I (hypothetically) wish to view it and hence be "depraved and corrupted", as the 1959 Obscene Publications Act phrases it.

.
Site Home Tull Tour History Annotated Passion Play
.
Day in the life... Page design and original graphics © NRT, 2003