Crime, punishment and teenagers
As a criminal barrister and the step mother of a teenage son, I have had my fair share of discussions about downloading images of Katy Perry’s breasts. Sexual development is normal and every modern parent has to deal with these issues. For the child, sex education is not just about learning through play but involves developing an understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. For the parent there is the worry of a child viewing something inappropriate. For a parent who is also a member of the Bar this also involves a lecture about criminal conduct, paedophile activity and not using the work computer. However, whilst there is a growing concern about the sexualisation of children in the UK and what images children are being exposed to, in my opinion, there is no need for greater regulation of the media.
Whatever your view of the industry, porn kings across the world have assisted in the development of principles of freedom of information. In the modern world, freedom of information includes freedom to view adult pornography as and when one would wish to do so, should you be so inclined. The consequence is that pornographic material is routinely available in magazines, in other media and across the internet. Most people are either not interested or conversely find it all perfectly acceptable. However, particularly since Jon Venables pleaded guilty to file sharing indecent images of children, there is growing concern that this freedom is coming into conflict with child protection and questions are being asked as to whether the law should be changed to provide for greater control of the media and internet service providers.
For some young people, pornography is part of their culture. They engage in sexual activity across the webcam on their computers, generally without the knowledge of their parents but also without realising they are breaking the law and putting themselves at risk of online grooming. This is now a worrying issue for parents who have a hard enough time controlling their teenagers without having to police criminal activity.
Publication or broadcast of adult pornography that is not obscene or extreme and does not outrage public decency is lawful. For many people, viewing lawful sexual images is merely a form of entertainment. For young people, seeing naked bodies is titillating fun and perfectly normal as part of their sexual development. However, some are concerned that adult sexual images are routinely broadcast at peak times on music and entertainment channels thus exposing children to sexual issues far earlier than in their homes or at school and that children have access to unlawful images via the internet
In relation to the mainstream media, the availability of pornography is already regulated by criminal laws on obscenity, extreme and indecent images and performances that outrage public decency. There are other controls such as the thinly observed watershed and certain channels being limited to certain content. This regulation seems to work. In relation to sexual images which are not unlawful, people have different views about what is acceptable and what is not and when such material should be broadcast. That Lady Gaga dances in her bra and knickers is unlikely to outrage public decency but recently Christina Aguilera’s performance on X factor outraged parents. Freedom to view such material is left to personal choice and parental control. Some teenagers will accept advice not to not buy Nuts Magazine as women are not sex objects. Others will just buy FHM instead and pretend to read the articles.
The problem with the internet is that access to sexual material is routinely available. Children may well search for images of people their own age without realising they are committing a criminal offence and in looking for something fairly innocuous, children can be drawn into abusive websites. There are also concerns that, as children become more open about sexual issues, they will conduct sexual behaviour across a webcam thereby committing further criminal offences and risking contact with paedophiles.
Recently suggestions have been made that greater media regulation could be by way of a tightly worded definition of 'decency'. This of course already exists in criminal law but website servers are often based abroad and therefore not subject to UK laws. In addition, in relation to adult material, one has to also remember that one person’s decency is another’s repression. Creating a compulsory system has a consequent danger that the use of such a test would be used to create censorship of other material. Using a relatively innocuous example; blocking the broadcast of Brad Pitt violently kicking Angelina Jolie whilst she is on the floor in the film Mr and Mrs Smith might please those with views on what is decent in a domestic setting and annoy others who found the film entertaining.
Another suggestion is the introduction of a voluntary classification / traffic light system. This could potentially include prime time TV Programmes like Eastenders which often deals with adult issues sometimes to our benefit by highlighting an important issue but more recently upset bereaved parents. Such a voluntary system could create a real headache in terms of vetting, the cost of which would be passed on to the consumer and in effect already exists as media organisations do not want to deal with a deluge of complaints. The recent protracted negotiations between CEOP and Facebook which led to a reporting system for dodgy communications demonstrates how difficult it is for formal bodies to engage but how simple it can be for informed children to complain
Despite the fact that most teenagers can fairly easily get round parental controls on a computer, in the end, there is no need for increased regulation. What we need is good policing and sensible moral and sexual education. Sexual behaviour involves an understanding of what is acceptable and what is not and, in my view; access to pornography is a matter for informed self regulation by telling children what is suitable and what is not, what the consequences and risks are of not listening to advice, that you will check their Google history and that there is nothing wrong with Katy Perry
Felicity Gerry