TY - JOUR
T1 - Extreme Concern
T2 - Regulating 'Dangerous Pictures' in the United Kingdom
AU - Attwood, Feona
AU - Smith, Clarissa
PY - 2010/3/1
Y1 - 2010/3/1
N2 - This article begins with an exploration of section 5 of the recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, otherwise known as the 'Dangerous Pictures Act' which outlaws the possession of 'extreme images', and the Rapid Evidence Assessment belatedly used to justify the legislation. We then examine the claims of the growth, dissemination, and widespread availability of material which 'glories in sexual violence' and its putative 'effects'. This current crisis over the meanings of pornography highlights the rhetorical function of the conceptual discourse of 'pornographication', its links to problematic figurations of the consumer or viewer of explicit materials, and how the identification of 'extreme' pornography has given voice to a range of anxieties about media spectacularization of the body. We end by arguing that opposition to the legislation is not just a matter of protecting personal freedoms or refusing to recognize the existence of harms; instead, we propose that academics will need to question the very parameters on which the impulses to legislate are based.
AB - This article begins with an exploration of section 5 of the recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, otherwise known as the 'Dangerous Pictures Act' which outlaws the possession of 'extreme images', and the Rapid Evidence Assessment belatedly used to justify the legislation. We then examine the claims of the growth, dissemination, and widespread availability of material which 'glories in sexual violence' and its putative 'effects'. This current crisis over the meanings of pornography highlights the rhetorical function of the conceptual discourse of 'pornographication', its links to problematic figurations of the consumer or viewer of explicit materials, and how the identification of 'extreme' pornography has given voice to a range of anxieties about media spectacularization of the body. We end by arguing that opposition to the legislation is not just a matter of protecting personal freedoms or refusing to recognize the existence of harms; instead, we propose that academics will need to question the very parameters on which the impulses to legislate are based.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/77953317150
U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2010.00500.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2010.00500.x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:77953317150
SN - 0263-323X
VL - 37
SP - 171
EP - 188
JO - Journal of Law and Society
JF - Journal of Law and Society
IS - 1
ER -