Could New UK Laws Threaten Comic Collectors?

[John Freeman]

(with thanks to Leah Moore and John Reppion who mentioned The Bookseller article on this matter their blog).

New laws designed to tackle extreme and child pornography could make owning mainstream comics like Batman or Judge Dredd illegal, campaigners claim.

The Bookseller notes an article in the Daily Telegraph citing concerns raised on the web site comicshopvoice.co.uk protesting against two pieces of legislation and urging comics fans to lobby their MPs on the matter. The first, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, has just come into force, but concerns were raised about the new laws as far back as May last year, by Mark Lawson in The Guardian and later, by artist David Hockney on the BBC's Newsnight.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act makes possessing "extreme pornography" - defined as any "extreme image" produced "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" - illegal.

The second is the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, which will introduce a similar law banning the possession of any image involving sexual activity and children.

While many have welcomed the government's latest attempts to legislate on the appalling illegal trade in child pornography, comicshopvoice.co.uk claim that if the new rules are interpreted harshly, their hobby could be criminalised. In a statement, the website says of the rules outlawing sexual violence: "Isn't that how Batman, Punisher, Judge Dredd get anything done? A kick in the balls or a*** would constitute this, and a kick in the balls is a well trodden part of humour."

It added that the new law on images of children would make owning some comic books, and "particularly some forms of Manga", illegal.

The comicshopvoice web site suggests that the law could affect titles such as Lost Girls, Wanted,
Batman: The Killing Joke, Watchmen, Punisher, Manga (pick a title -- elsewhere, anime fans have described the act as "criminalising" their genre) and Cerebus.

The site continues: "Because this is a minefield for the law it then falls on the Police to enforce it, and it is their judgment that could lead to a prosecution.

"We could get to a point where the police could legitimately visit your home or workplace, and sanctioned by an un-elected magistrate or judge go through your collection and if they find any comic book that they feel will cause sexual arousal or displays extreme violence then they could arrest you."

Comic book fans are being urged to lobby their MPs, the group adding: "What is frightening about this law is that it gives [the Government] carte blanche to invade our lives, to shut down our comic shops and ultimately it could lead to censorship of books and films as well."

• You can write to your MP via WriteToThem.com

• For a complete look at the new law, visit the official site

• For further comments see:
www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/19/evil_cartoon_badness

• Mark Lawson commented on these proposals in The Guardian way back i...

• "Professor Sapient" outlines the issues in considerable detail here...

• Coroners and Justice Bill: the most toxic law ever?

[andrew wildman]

It seems very easy to get scared by new laws, especially censorship ones. There is always a reaction that it is taking away our freedom and dictating what we can and cant do and stifling our creativity... What pops out of this conversation for me is, why is it seen as a threat to comic collectors? It would seem that there would be questions you would have to ask yourself if you needed to justify your activities/hobbies/collections of material by contesting a law and trying to make it ok to possess or produce an"extreme image" produced "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" or more importantly any image involving sexual activity and children Ask yourself whether you possess any material that fits that description, or more importantly, ask yourself whether you need to produce material that fits that description to express what you need to express.

[John Freeman]

The concerns about the law are stated in the article. I fully support government initiatives to clamp down on "image involving sexual activity and children", but I'm concerned -- as are others -- at the interpretation of the law in future.

This comic illustrates how the other parts of the Criminal and Justice Act law is already being used against footie fans: http://www.urban75.org/comics/rights.html and looking at the date, this was back in 1996, way before the new revisions came in.

No-one in their right mind is opposing control and enforcement of laws where children are at risk, but there's clearly more to this debate than that, whatever the government would like us to think.

They're not very even handed when it comes to regulation anyway, look how the games industry has put its house in order over violence etc and their ratings, compared with the film industry.

[John Freeman]

I can see where the Government and concerned parties are coming from in trying to deal with the appalling trade in child pornography, but as Mark Lawson pointed out, "The twisted mind will always find loopholes [in the law] - and the government has correctly identified one - but, if closing a loophole threatens other legitimate forms of expression, then it is wrong.”

In my opinion, this could well be a threat to what comics collectors choose to read and may already own, unaware of the legislation’s potential ramifications. Who has the ultimate decision on what should and shouldn’t be and by what right are their views more important than, say, parents, who you would hope already control what their children read or watch?

From my memory of my studies at Lancaster University on UK film censorship in the 1930s this was for the most part regulated by, according to Jeffrey Richards ( http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/history/profiles/Jeffrey-Richards), an ageing spinster and a retired army colonel. Their decisions meant certain films such as Battleship Potemkin were never screened during that time and, more importantly, films were re-scripted and re-shot in order to secure certification: Sing As We Go, which originally featured a march on Downing Street by angry miners was eviscerated into a push to support the war effort, for example.

Censorship by authorities is open to abuse in the cause of their ends, in my view, and it could be argued that what is being proposed is the thin end of the wedge. "Give them an inch"...

I fully support parents’ stand on controlling what their kids see when it comes to comics, but we all know that kind of action isn't endemic.

[andrew wildman]

All good points. All I would say is ask yourself if you have any "extreme image" produced "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" or more importantly any image involving sexual activity and children. And if so, why. I would be interested to hear of any comics content that fits the description.
I guess the other thing is rather than react to and try to stop something that is clearly there to protect children would it not be better to come up with something that addresses the concern. We are all creative people. Lets see what it is we can do to inform/educate/entertain our young readers without resorting to inappropriate material :-)
A

[John Freeman]

Replies seem to have jumbled up for some reason but to quote Campaigns and Communications Manager of Unlock Democracy (http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk) James Graham on his blog, we may be being paranoid but...

"...I invite you to consider the following: firstly, the examples of the police using their powers come up with new and ever more authoritarian ways are legion. How many times have we seen photographers and protestors being arrested under terrorism laws for example? The fact that War on Terror boardgame can be confiscated on the grounds that the enclosed balaclava could be used for criminal activities tells me all I need to know. Secondly, there is the Lord Horror,/b> case. "I seem to recall there being a number of other police raids on comic shops during the 1990s but since they were before the mass expansion of the internet I’m struggling to find confirmation of this.

We may not be living in a police state, but paranoid, authoritarian policing is certainly on the rise (cf. Form 696; Section 27 orders on football supporters). Paul Stephenson’s appointment as head of the Met does not exactly f....

"I’m pleased that the Lib Dems voted against the Coroners and Justice Bill at second reading (it is notable - and lamentable - that the Tories decided to abstain). What will emerge from the Committee Stage and the Lords remains to be seen.

[James Graham]

To be honest, what worries me is less the law itself than the worrying culture that is developing within the police. John has already linked to my references to Form 696, Section 27 Orders and the decision to confiscate the War on Terror Boardgame. I should add the recent example of an artist being arrested for taking photos in Elephant and Castle for being an "unacceptable security risk." There is a pattern forming, as Henry Porter has been chronicling in the Observer over the last few years.

A few years ago, this sort of police harassment was limited to unloveable political demonstrators, youths and suspected terrorists who just happened to have brown skin. They have been notably beginning to cast their net more widely recently.

Put it this way; you may be satisfied that there is nothing in your collection produced "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" but would your local police necessarily agree with you? How would you like your home or local comic shop raided as a test case? How will the Daily Mail react? And subsequently, what sort of chilling effect would three or four such raids have on publishers and retailers? My concern is that these new laws are a green light for the authorities to try it on.

[DAJB]

This is almost identical to the case of Christopher Handley currently taking place in the US. In that case, a post office worker reported a collector of manga comics. The case is being defended by the CBLDF and, it seems, Neil Gaiman has decided to wade into the debate. That kind of support must be welcome but won't do anything to alleviate the damage this will have done to the guy's life.

It's naive to think this kind of censorship won't catch the innocent. Once a report to the police has been made, no matter how unfounded, the police have to take action or they'll be opening themselves up to criticism. It may or may not be that the person prosecuted will eventually be found innocent but, by that time, he is likely to have been ostracised by his friends, vilified in the press and will probably have lost his job.

I have no doubt that this law would criminalise anyone owning a copy of, for example, Lost Girls. The argument that the book was not produced "solely for the purpose of sexual arousal" will carry no weight with the kind of ultra-conservative reactionaries who like to think they have the right to fling these accusations around in a bid to impose their views on others. It's as if the Lady Chatterly trial had never taken place.

[Lew Stringer]

I agree with Andrew on this. I'm not quite seeing how this relates to mainstream comics. The wording "any extreme image" produced "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" doesn't bring to mind any Batman or Judge Dredd comics I've ever seen. Or any other mainstream children's comic come to that. The law is about outlawing sexual images of children, not voluptuous pics of Spider-Woman.

Sounds to me that its main intent is to simply update the law regarding possession of sexual images of children to include drawings and CGI creations. Ok, it's a bit "thought police" but does anyone seriously believe that a detailed CGI rendering of kid porn is more ethically acceptable than a photograph just because no real child was abused? Of course not, so what's wrong with a law against it?

Some knee-jerk reactionary has then thought "Ah, comics use drawings and CGI" and is scaremongering the comics community into thinking the law could be used against them. This new law is no more relevant to mainstream comics than it is to postage stamps.

Perhaps I'm being incredibly naive but how exactly would a law opposing sexual drawings of children damage the comic industry and comic collectors, when comics never feature such vulgarities anyway?

[McScotty]

I am (perhaps incorrectly) assuming the Police/law courts would be sensible it any potential laws interpretation in practice. I can see a need for clamping down on some very off colour comic based art - we've probably all see the so called "adult" smut versions of the Simpsons, Flintstones, Beetle Bailly , Jetson etc on the web where there are pictures of child characters in pornographic scenes - ditto some CGI illos - personally I have no worry about these illos being banned and I would considered these as "extreme"

I cannot see any right thinking person thinking that comic strips showing Mini the Minx (etc) getting slippered in the Beano, as an act of child S&M, ditto the Judge Dredd , Batman illos. If these were considered "porn" then you would also have to look at illos where kids are shown naked - VIZ, Hunt Emersons, Bill Watterson (yep I ve even seen Calvins butt in a "Calvin and Hobbes" strip) have all drawn kids in the bath in naked , semi - naked situations etc - it would be laughed out of court - Next up would be Archie,Betty and Veronica's underaged threesomes - it could go on and on.

However, I will be contentious here - whilst I do not think this law would affect the comics industry in any way, I do think there are some pieces of comic art that may well be a cause of concern to collectors in relation to it being treated as "porn" or "extreme" - for example some of the work of Robert Crumb might be considered risky/extreme - and more especially what about Vaughn Bode? - I'm a big fan of Bode and have most of his books - and to be honest at the best of times Bode walked a thin line between being acceptable and just going way over the top - there is one particular strip where Cheech Wizard is confronted by a child (female) showing him her privates and asking Cheech if he want to be intimate with her - Cheech refuses of course but makes a sex comment to the kid. Now Im not saying this is acceptable or unacceptable strip, but as a collector of Bode I have this strip in a Cheech Wizard collection - is this extrerme? and heaven forbid am I in possession of child porn? - I suspect there may be a lot more "borderline" strips out there than folk think (alhough to reiterate, I doubt if this law is a problem)

[John Freeman]

A petition urging Government to clarify new legal powers which may impinge on comics creation and fandom has just been launched, urging the Prime Minister to ensure that the future of the medium of Comic Art in the UK is not endangered by The Coroners and Justice Bill or The Criminal and Immigration Act 2008.

See: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Protect-Comics/

downthetubes News Story: http://downthetubescomics.blogspot.com/2009/03/comic-book-alliance-...

[Malcolm Kirk (M.I.K.)]

Just read an interesting column by Jonathan Clements in this month's Neo magazine (issue 56) which mentions the following incident...

http://elizabethmcclung.blogspot.com/2006/06/to-canadian-customs-x-...