RPF, censorship and the nature of offence

[filthgoblin]

Mr G pointed this article out to me yesterday, and whilst I was a little incredulous at the time, the implications of it have started to sink in a little.

Basically, what is described in the link is the guy in question writing some [pretty distasteful, by the sounds of things] RPF. In it, he fantasised openly about kidnapping the members of Girls Aloud and then killing them. There is no link to the story/fantasy and probably no way that this could be found even if I wanted to, but it raised a number of interesting questions for me.

This is the first time that I've heard of someone writing what is essentially RPF being called out by any kind of authority for doing it, but this wasn't just a ticking off. The Criminal Prosecution Service thought there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the writer under the Obscene Publications Act and, whilst this was unsuccessful, it raises questions about when something that someone finds offensive crosses the line and becomes an offence.

I've written some stuff that I've considered to be pretty harmless fantasy that references real people, and read plenty more than I've written. I can totally understand that what I've written might be considered offensive by some, but it comes clearly labelled as fiction, as fantasy, and as intended to be inoffensive. But the fact that this guy's piece was on a website for fantasies seems not to have dissuaded the CPS from taking out a prosecution against the writer.

The fact the CPS decided to take out this case might be more due to nature of the piece, in which the author fantasised about kidnapping and killing these girls. It could be that the concern was that this showed an expression of some kind of intent rather than something less sinister. However, they chose to prosecute under the Obscene Publications Act rather than for a perceived intention to cause harm. I've come across quite a few pieces of fiction in the RPF arena that concern the death of real people who aren't actually dead; talk about kidnapping or holding people hostage; or graphically describe rape or other sexually or non-sexually violent acts. I wonder whether the issue was that he was describing the fantasy in the first person and it was that which made it seem dangerous enough to require him to be arrested and tried for it. But again, I'm not really sure since the original source material is clearly not available.

I'm unsure how I feel about this. I've always been pretty clear that RPF to me is all about fantasy and nothing to do with reality. I like to write and read about people I find attractive and their relationships with other people I find attractive, and the details of their real lives are important to me in the same way as canon is important to me in fiction about TV or movie fandoms. I know that some people find it unpalatable or creepy, and that's fine. But prosecution? I'm not quite sure how I fit that into my perspective.

Comments

[alba17.livejournal.com]

I find it really disturbing that this person is being prosecuted for something they've written on a fantasy website. It wasn't like they sent a threatening letter to the "real people" in question. And good point about the prosecution being for obscenity (huh?) rather than threatening violence. Doesn't make much sense (not that I'm at all familiar with the law of obscenity in the UK).

I'm very uncomfortable with people being punished for thoughts. This is why I don't like hate crimes legislation. I think the intent is laudable, but it's essentially criminalizing thought. The violent act is already a crime. (Just for context, I'm very liberal and not straight, so...it's not like I'm some conservative who hates gay people.)

I like to read some RPF, but I've never written it or had any desire to. (yet - never say never)

[filthgoblin.livejournal.com]

I didn't think for a second that you were in some way advocating for a mass outbreak of expressed hatred. I am torn over the idea of protecting people, particularly in groups less able to stand up for themselves, from incitement to violence. I can see the argument that in some ways the laws to prosecute people who are actually violent towards others are a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has kicked your head in. I find a lot of what the British National Party [the political party of the British fascist movement] has to say extremely offensive, but then I wouldn't want to stop them from saying it as it then turns them into suppressed martyrs. As Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". However, it is a delicate balance when on occasion those who are speaking would happily take away the rights of others to air their views.

This case was particularly unusual because the Act is very rarely used to prosecute people who write things. It is mostly used in trying to control images and video rather than literature. I think that a development in British law in recent years that was of greater concern to me was the inclusion in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, passed last year, of offences that criminalise people who possess images of what could be considered an extreme pornographic nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008#Extreme_pornographic_images). This was predominantly on the back of a campaign by one mother whose daughter was raped and murdered by a man who was later alleged to be addicted to violent internet pornography after being found in possession of a large quantity of sexually violent images and videos.

I know that this law certainly criminalises a number of my friends who are into what one might consider extreme BDSM, all of which is consensually made and none of whom are likely to go out on some kind of strangling spree. As a result, if they are ever raided they face imprisonment and entry onto the Sex Offenders Register, which would seriously impact on their ability to find employment. The evidence that was given in the Girls Aloud case was that it was very unlikely that someone reading something like that would be likely to go out and try to replicate it, but apparently the same logic does not apply to violent images according to the legislators. Interestingly, though, there is a condition that states that the images have to be "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." So it's alright to have pictures of you engaging in breast binding or cock and ball torture, as long as you didn't intend anyone to get their rocks off whilst looking at it.

I can't claim to have a full grasp of the issues surrounding this. All I know is that it made me think about how I behave, what I believe and what implications my beliefs and behaviours might have in law.

[sweetsyren.livejournal.com]

I read about this and I actually thought about you (being the only RPFer that I read...). I can't help but wonder whether anywhere is truely a safe haven for free expression of fantasy any more.

It's kind of depressing...