I read this with a certain amount of interest, since the idea of butchering Girls Aloud, for their crimes against just about everything, holds an undeniable allure.
Civil servant in court over Girls Aloud ‘porn blog’
Newcastle upon Tyne A civil servant is being prosecuted for the alleged publication of a blog detailing the kidnap, torture, mutilation and murder of the pop band Girls Aloud.
In what may be a test case, Darryn Walker, 35, is accused of writing and then posting the allegedly obscene article on a fantasy porn website. Headlined “Girls (Scream) Aloud”, the blog is understood to have run to 12 pages and allegedly described the rape and killing of the bandmates.
I’ve not read this guy’s ‘work’. Okay, it doesn’t sound particularly tasteful and I’m sure it would be fair to assume that some would, and do, find it offensive. However, you don’t need to be Sigmund Freud to know that rape is not an uncommon feature of sexual fantasies – womens’ too.
Nor do you need to have the fearsome interrogative mind of a top QC to make the argument that thought and word are NOT deed. Men and women alike will have sexual fantasies that they wouldn’t ever want to put into real life: Just as we may daydream about pushing that wanker of a manager at work out of an 8th floor window. However, no rational person would (or should) think that the satisfaction of the notion would translate into the actual deed – if you were to rape, injure or kill, obviously there’d be the shock, horror, pain and misery, to say nothing of the legal consequences. The supposed thrill of the deed wouldn’t get a look in with the sane person.
Next, according to The Times the offending text was on a fantasy porn website. So, in fairness, it wasn’t going to turn up on the web browser of any child whose parents had fulfilled their responsibility to properly manage their child’s internet use. Nor, for that matter, would it turn up anywhere else that you weren’t looking for fantasy porn.
So this starts to have the scent of a crusade by a self-appointed guardian. Ah yes, here it comes:
The blog was brought to its attention by the Internet Watch Foundation, an organisation that polices potentially obscene material.
The digital manifestation of Mary Whitehouse has it’s beak in this affair. This is a self-regulating charitable organisation, whose listings are provided to internet filtering software companies. These companies create software and internet access devices used to protect children and organisations by blocking unsuitable web content. The upshot is that if your site ends up on their list, access to it will be blocked for millions of people around the world. In fact, according to this IWF press release, BT broadband customers are blocked from viewing IWF listed content at the ISP. No choice for consenting adults. BT stops what IWF says it should stop. I don’t know if this is across the board or an opt-in service, but since I wouldn’t give a penny to BT anyway, I have no need of finding out.
But I digress. While this control over content is fine and good if the site is truly guilty of providing unsuitable content and the audience has to be protected for legal, moral or ethical reasons in the case of children and employees, where is the due process and the scrutiny? The IWF are judge, jury and executioner, with no accountability to parliament or the public. So what happens if a site is wrongly listed by them? I don’t know but I would think it time to get a new URL and a new web provider.
If you graze the IWF site, you will see that their prima facie purpose is to fight child pornography. Who could argue with that!? But what, then, are they doing precipitating the prosecution of a person writing a fantasy story about torturing a group of adult females whose dreary and annoying existences have been thrust upon the public consciousness? Where’s the kiddie porn in that?
On the other hand, according to the article, this man is (or was) a civil servant. In which case, the salient question must be, did he in any sense work on this on company time i.e. OUR TIME? Hang the civil servant, but for what he does, not what he thinks or writes.
AJ
Quick update – I just refreshed that Times article to see the latest comments and the comment section has been completely removed from beneath this story. The early ones were uniformly along the lines of the above.