A Stitch in Haste

The latest chapter in the ongoing saga of "There is No First Amendment in Europe" --

Under the proposals, looking at images of rape and sexual torture would become a criminal offence for the first time.

And people caught with so-called "violent and extreme pornography" could be jailed for up to three years.
...
Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said: "This sort of material is not just offensive, it contains images of sexual acts and sexual violence that are already illegal to publish or distribute in the UK."

That last sentence is especially noteworthy, since in the U.S., the distinction between possessing pornography and "publishing or distributing it" is a basic First Amendment principle — see U.S. v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971). With the exception of child pornography, an adult has a First Amendment right to possess not only pornography but even obscene material (i.e., "hard core p0rn") — see Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969). Only the distribution of obscenity is subject to proscription, not the possession. So the "contradiction" that U.K. officials seem to see is nothing more than a long-standing principle of American constitutional law.

But that's just us, and our "obstructionist" Bill of Rights. Go figure.

Also "just us" is apparently our insistence that laws not be hopelessly vague. What, precisely, are "rape," "sexual torture" or "violent and extreme pornography"? The infamous gobbledygook response of Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it," is not a viable answer.

This law would be patently unconstitutional in the U.S. And rightly so.

But that's just us.

More thoughts at To The People.