ATVOD Q&A with Pete Johnson

[one eyed jack]

Recorded Pete Johnson who held a Q&A at XBiz EU this week to a packed room (see the video)

[andy at handiwork]

He could pass as a pornographer any day. He just looks the part.

[one eyed jack]

You could well be right Andy !happy!

[a m playlist]

Going by his comments in the video clip, it is merely Peter Johnson's and his organisation's (ie ATVOD) "interpretation" that material that has or would be classified by BBFC as being "R18" should be put behind a paywall by internet content providers because such material "might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen". Not "12A" , "15" or "18" certificate material, just "R18".

So not putting in place a non-paywall page/screen prior to accessing such "R18" material, warning people that the content beyond this page/screen is for those age 18 and over and if necessary having them confirm their date of birth or state that they are age 18 and over before clicking to go further in a website is apparently not enough in ATVOD's eyes.

Well I have seen a fair few "R18" material in my time, and most, if not all the "R18" I enjoy watching would not, in my "interpretation" "seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen".

So why does ATVOD single out in blanket form "R18" material and not, say, also "18" material? Many films that I've across that have or would be classified "18" or even "15" have violent scenes in them which could be interpreted as "material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen". I do not believe the vast majority of people under the age of eighteen would be seriously impaired if they happen to come across hardcore pornography.

If those people under the age eighteen were to happen to come across "R18" hardcore material inadvertently, then that would be unfortunate, but they should be encouraged, usually by good parenting and guardianship, not to view such scenes any further. If there are people under the age of eighteen who actively pursue trying to look at such content, then their parents and guardians should have the guts to discipline them, especially if they are age ten and over - remember, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old.

[one eyed jack]

Pete also answers the question about the evvidence of this to which he responds that no this committee would allow tests be run on minors to prove that

Well...Why not find it in the real world. Why not pull in those social worker resources from his former associates at the BBFC and find solid examples of childhoods scarred by pornography (not sex abuse) who were exposed to porn

Otherwise the foundation of his comments are built on sand and provide no proof to his comments whatsoever

ATVOD seems to be based on pure rhetoric than established fact