Politics is a tricky business. Within right-wing countries such as my
own home, the United Kingdom, politicians play a difficult game, attempting to
combine conservative values with an economy driven only by growth. Ever since
David Cameron (part of the right-wing Tories) took on the role of Prime
Minister, a class hierarchy of sorts has emerged – arguably an undeniable
element of a Capitalist government and not one which has had a hugely
detrimental effect so far (aside from the fact that most of the population now
shudder with fear at the thought of £9000 tuition fees, meaning that university
education is now less of a right, more of a privilege). However, Cameron’s most
recent announcement that he was going to ‘revolutionise the Internet’ was a
step too far, and a clear example of politics sticking its proverbial nose
where it does not belong.
 |
| Kristen McMenamy, 032c |
The ‘revolution’ of which Cameron speaks will manifest itself in the form of strict online censoring, no doubt designed to appease the overly-sensitive members of the UK population that spend their Saturday nights on the phone to OFCOM, complaining about Lady Gaga getting her arse out on the X Factor. Now, with regards to the ban, it would be less irritating if Cameron was talking about cracking down on child pornography, or if the censorship was aimed specifically at youngsters, but he wasn’t and it isn’t. Instead Cameron now apparently feels he has the right to judge what we, as a nation of consenting, educated adults, should and should not be allowed to see – a rage-inducing thought, especially when we consider the effects that the ban could have on young creatives. This article is designed to highlight just one of the countless flaws in Cameron’s grandiose scheme – the notion of defining what it and what isn’t porn, especially within the realms of fashion and art. In terms of censorship, how can we define what is inappropriate and what isn’t?
