You make a very good point. Any fool can come out in favor of drawing and quartering immigrants -- they're so patently evil it's not even interesting. The Government is the Government because they need to be able to make the tough choices -- even something as radical as saying murder (of all things!) might be wrong.

I like the point that Lord Wallace of Tankerness made in the House of Lords, where he pointed out that in the case of some of the material covered by the act consensually taking part in proceedings isn't actually illegal (I suspect he is thinking of clauses other than the ones about bestiality and necrophilia), so the law would reach this bizarre situation where it's illegal to possess the image in question but not illegal to take part in the sort of action depicted. This would seem untenable.

How do they distinguish between pornography and films? Most of my DVD collection is horror and would be rendered illegal by those definitions. If they use the definition that pornography is supposed to be deliberately sexually titillating, then isn't someone who finds that kind of stuff arousing going to get the same kind of thrills from watching Itchi the Killer as they are from some kinky porno flick?

What's wrong with you bunch of cringing, pussyfooting liberals? Use some common sense! Ban films, I say! And television, obviously. It's a gateway drug.

Wouldn't the rule about corpes make Clerks illegal.

Hee hee - yes!