The second quote from The Scientist only starts to address this, so I think we do need to emphasise the defining principle at stake here. And if we are talking about preventing harm, then that principle must be ‘consent’.

I agree with most of your article, but there are a couple of bits that concern me.

“…there are still many reasons why we might want to restrict or ban some types of pornography. For example, it may be entirely appropriate for a society to put limits on the sorts of pornography it’s willing to accept, or on who has access to it…”

Without any evidence of direct harm being caused, I do not see how this can be justified. Other laws still apply and should be sufficient: one does not need to discuss child pornography or bestiality within a discussion about pornography because both child abuse and animal abuse are illegal in and of themselves. Conversely, if the act itself is exclusively between consenting adults, there is no justification for prohibition.

As regards access, again the only ban would be based on existing law and the general (liberal) principal of consent (where certainly groups, notably minors, are perhaps assumed not to be able to consent).

“We might also want to restrict it in public if, regardless of the effect it has on its consumers, it made others feel uncomfortable or vulnerable.”

With this I have a bit more sympathy, but ultimately a liberal society does not ban things that make some people feel uncomfortable. I would rather person A had to avert their eyes than person B was not allowed to hold up a picture. Religious symbols make some people uncomfortable; others are disturbed by airbrushing. (Oh yeah. We’re against that, aren’t we!) If we prohibit the public display of things that makes others feel uncomfortable then we really will undermine freedom of expression.

“Vulnerable” is a bit more complicated. You’d need to define it. Generally even freedom-of-speech fundamentalists would oppose big posters saying “Watch out! There’s a (insert racial group here) about.”

(Unless, perhaps, they were those evil humphries).

“it’s time to stop debating from entrenched political positions and start looking at the evidence.”

Now that’s just silly! D

This is simply not true. Whilst I agree with your push for evidence-based policy, there are at least two evidence reviews (can’t remember the titles – sorry) out there and plenty more papers for reading.

Jennifer Saul’s (Uni. of Sheffield) 2003 paper (link to abstract below) is the best paper to read on the topic in my view – though it is not a review, it seems – sensibly to me – to end up perhaps calling for a context-of-viewing / health-warning approach to the problems.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120092296/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

It’s worth noting that during the public consultation, the Government’s own consultation document stated that not only was there no evidence of a link between violent pornography and sexual crime, but that there was evidence of no such link.

I’m glad that when I contacted Chris Huhne about the issue and put him in touch with Backlash, he was receptive to the liberal arguments against the legislation. Groups like Backlash and Consenting Adult Action Network do important work defending people’s sexual liberty, and deserve the full support of Liberal Democrats.