Human migration: madness in motion

Unlike birds and other creatures that migrate in an orderly and timely way, the mass movement of humans is shambolic.

We used to wander about freely hunting and gathering in small tribes. As human populations grew and greeds as well as needs became greater, the more developed tribes sent explorers forth to look for opportunities among vulnerable communities abroad. Invaders and colonisers followed.

Portugal and Spain appealed to Celtic, Roman and Moorish intruders. Britain attracted Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Normans.

The trend swivelled when the Portuguese, Spanish and later the British dispatched their brightest and bravest to set up shop in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

Now we are into a different kind of mass movement in which the trend has done a U-turn: the former colonising countries are being colonised.

Accurate statistics are fleeting and iffy because of the erratic and sometimes illegal nature of migration, but according to the OECD the percentage of foreign-born citizens living in Portugal is about 8% compared with 12% in the UK and well over 14% in Spain.

In Portugal, foreign-born residents from outside the EU outnumber those from within by about four to one. The majority are from the former colony of Brazil. There are also plenty from the old African territories.

Being among the poorer European countries, Portugal is not fretting about being swamped by EU immigrants. They are seen as an asset not a threat. Over the past couple of decades, plenty of East Europeans have come to work hard. Reasonably well-off British citizens, who like to be thought of as ‘expatriates’ rather than immigrants, have ambled in to buy property and retire in the sun.

Alarmingly, however, with Portugal’s population ageing and its birth-rate dropping, there has been an exodus in recent years of well-educated young men and women seeking employment in the far-flung Portuguese-speaking diaspora.

Some are going to the US where Barack Obama recently emphasised that Americans “are and always will be, a nation of immigrants.” About 20% of all international migrants - nearly 41 million or about 13% of the total population - live in the US.

Obama’s decision to enact sweeping immigration reforms that would allow almost five million people to remain living in the country illegally has outraged Republicans. Immigration could become a central issue in the next US presidential election. It undoubtedly will be high on the agenda in the next general election in Britain.

David Cameron pledged last year to reduce the UK’s net migration rate to tens of thousands. Embarrassingly, the net figure to June 2014 has turned out to be a whopping 260,000. It could have been worse: Germany is much the preferred destination within Europe.

It’s not only the scale of immigration that currently has the British in a lather. The Brits see themselves as victims of their own economic strength and generous benefit schemes. It’s claimed that too many immigrants, especially those from cash-strapped Eastern Europe, turn out to be scroungers.

Because of the many indigenous people in Britain who say immigration is so far out of control that they feel like foreigners in their own land, a referendum on continued membership of the EU becomes ever more likely.

Well aware of the surge in euroscepticism and the need to placate anti-immigrant voters, Cameron said he would lead the UK out of the EU unless it reformed the ‘fundamental principle’ of free movement of workers.

He quickly backed down on his demand for a cap on the number of EU immigrants after German Chancellor Angela Merkel ‘sat on’ him and said the matter was non-negotiable.

Political squabbles don’t come into the equation for those from war-torn countries in the Middle East and Africa paying big bribes to people smugglers to get them to the French port of Calais. If they manage to scramble past the high fences, riot police, sniffer dogs and ranks of carbon dioxide detectors at Calais docks, there’s a chance of making it across the English Channel to the new El Dorado.

By contrast, the controversial Golden Visa scheme (which the Portuguese government intends to continue) enables the wealthiest from China and elsewhere to become residents and travel freely within the Schengen countries of Europe. This despite the recent unveiling of a predictable scandal involving corrupt Portuguese government officials and property agents.

In some ways migration seems to have descended into madness, a frenzied free-for-all. Bar-tailed godwits and monarch moths behave with far more dignity.

Corruption: bringing down the mighty

A wise man once said, “Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.”

Perhaps this was said at least partly in jest, but it is certainly true that corruption lurks in the shadows from the bottom to the very top of politics in many countries all over the world. Portugal’s reputation in this regard is far from the worst, but it is still appalling.

Abuse of power for private gain has long been suspected not only within parliament and local administrations, but also the judiciary, the police, the military, state agencies and nationalised and private businesses. Many if not most culprits get away with it of course.

Transparency International, which calls itself the leading civil society organisation fighting corruption worldwide, will launch its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index on December 3. Portugal is likely to drop a peg or two from its position of 15th in the 28 EU countries and 33rd in the world.

Transparency International has been monitoring citizens’ perceptions annually for the past 20 years. Keeping scores like this is a helpful guide, but it doesn’t profess to tell anything like the whole story because corruption is such a crafty, behind closed doors and under-the-table activity. 

 According to this year’s anti-corruption report produced by the European Commission, 90% of the Portuguese population think corruption is widespread in this country. The average among EU member states is bad enough at 76%.

The same report reveals that more than 70% of those within companies who responded to the EC survey believe that corruption is a problem when doing business in Portugal.

Asked if they considered patronage and nepotism to be a problem for their company when doing business, the ‘yes’ figure was again about 70%. The great majority rated the ‘problems’ in doing business in Portugal as ‘serious’ or ‘very serious.’

Plenty of people also think the medical and health system is ‘corrupt’ or ‘extremely corrupt’ and that backhanders and kickbacks are sometimes involved in awarding public tenders, or the issuing of permits and licences for building works or safety and sanitary arrangements.

Trying to keep control on corruption in Portugal starts with the national anti-corruption unit of the Polícia Judiciária (UNCC). The investigation of misconduct and abuse of power committed by holders of political office is but one of UNCC’s responsibilities.

The prevention, detection and investigation of all kinds of embezzlement, influence peddling, fraud and forgery is up to the UNCC. Big job. Although the unit is said to be under-resourced, the arrest of former prime minister José Sócrates and the unearthing of the Golden Visa scandal suggests that investigators have been working at full throttle.

How these new corruption cases are handled – and if and when they eventually reach trial - will be watched meticulously by the media, bearing in mind that the judicial system itself is perceived by many to be very corrupt. The statute of limitation for corruption offences is 15 years, which is just as well because court processes are often woefully slow.

Front-page news coverage of the Sócrates and Golden Visa cases came hard on the heels of sensational allegations against FIFA officials awarding the staging of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, violent outrage over government corruption in Mexico and shenanigans in China that have resulted in more than 13,000 officials being found guilty of corruption and bribery in the first nine months of this year alone.

So what’s new? Over the years, leaders of all stripes - dictators and pillars of democracy alike - have been unable to resist the temptation to abuse their power for personal gain.

Among the worst in modern history was the president of Zaire from 1965 to 1997, Mobutu Sese Seko. He embezzled somewhere between $5 billion and $15 billion. In addition to chartering supersonic Concorde aircraft for shopping trips to Paris, Mobutu and his family, together with an army of bodyguards, used to enjoy visits to his holiday mansion in the Algarve.

The wise man who said, “Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad” was Henry Kissinger, national security adviser and then secretary of state to Richard Nixon who presided over arguably one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of the United States.

The American author John Steinbeck was of the opinion that “power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts…perhaps the fear of a loss of power.”

Mobutu feared being toppled by a military coup and being thrown out of his homeland, which is what happened.  

Richard Nixon’s undoing was his desperate cover-up manoeuvring, fuelled by fear of being exposed by his many political enemies for the 1972 Watergate break-in.

While José Sócrates has little else in common with these two mega-rogues, he must have known that with the worsening of the economic crisis in 2011 an ignominious fall from power was inevitable.

Perhaps the moral of the story lies with a saying attributed to the former Socialist prime minister’s namesake, the classical Greek philosopher Socrates: “He is richest who is content with the least...”

Re-food ramps up its no-hunger effort

With the approach of Christmas comes the prospect of feasting on roast turkey and traditional Portuguese favourites such as marzipan cakes and bolo del rei. Sadly, not for everyone.

There are many people in cities, towns and villages across this country living in poverty, dependent on handouts from food banks and soup kitchens. The full extent of the problem is unclear, but it was probably greater this year than last and it may be worse again in 2015.

Only a few generations ago, food in Portugal was homegrown, seasonally plentiful and cherished for its wholesomeness.

With population growth and urban expansion, foodstuffs have become processed commodities, mass-produced and transported across continents for sale in supermarkets in vast quantities.

Abundance has given rise to immense wastage.

Amid today’s economic inequality and severe austerity, extravagance and gluttony co-exist with poverty and hunger. 

Since the founding of the world’s first food bank in Arizona in 1967, food collection and distribution systems for the hungry have been set up all over North America and in other developed countries around the globe.

The need for such systems increased in Portugal and throughout Europe with the global credit crunch in 2007-2008. It accelerated as the economic crisis developed from 2010.

Co-ordinating the collection of food from a wide range of suppliers and distributing it fairly to all ages of needy people all over the country became a complex task for members of the Portuguese Federation of Food Banks.

Unfortunately there will always be spongers keen to take advantage of anything going for free, and scroungers who see benefits or assistance as a way of life. But a great many people genuinely living in poverty through no real fault of their own feel cloaked in shame.

The prevalence of both waste and hunger moved American altruist Hunter Halder to found his so-called Re-food project in 2011 in Lisbon where he has been living for 23 years.

His idea was to complement national food bank services, as well as private charities running soup kitchens within or outside the food bank system.

Re-food’s somewhat different approach was to organise neighbourhood teams of unpaid volunteers to collect unused food from a variety of retail and catering outlets, and to repackage and deliver it to the homes of those in need.

The formula was designed to be replicated in neighbourhoods throughout the capital and eventually throughout the country.

In May of this year, when we last reported on this, most of Lisbon’s 24 parishes had Re-Food teams in action or being formed. The system had been introduced to Oporto and plans had been ‘seeded’ in the Algarve.

Halder updated us this week saying that the Re-food project was now growing exponentially and that the 1st Annual Re-food National Encounter meeting will be held on 8th December at the ISCTE-IUL campus in central Lisbon.

Around 500 senior volunteers from all over the country will gather to absorb lessons from the original Re-Food cells established in Lisbon and prepare for setting up more elsewhere.  

Thirty-three teams of volunteers have already been formed or are progressing towards full operational status. They include groups in Algoz-Tunes, Albufeira, Almancil, Quarteira and most recently Faro.

Also attending the December 8 meeting will be representatives of more than 40‘pioneer’ groups hoping to introduce Re-food in their home areas in 2015.

“Our accelerated growth will bring the benefits of the project to many more people in many more communities,” said Halder.

“At the same time we realise that our growth cannot be only quantitative. We understand that we must also grow qualitatively to insure that we always deliver the best possible service to insure that Re-food is properly replicated in each new community.”

The costs of holding the national meeting are being kept to a minimum with support from ISCTE-IUL, which has drastically reduced their fees for the use of their premises. Several major hotel groups are going to offer rooms to defer the costs of those travelling from afar. Some of the project’s food source partners will deliver lunch at no cost.

Concurrent to the meeting, Re-food is launching a central office dedicated to managing communication and information, assembling and training teams and delivering the tools and know-how necessary to enable others to replicate operations in their own communities.

On whether food wastage in Portugal is being brought under control, Halder was circumspect, but optimistic.

“There is clearly an emerging consciousness that good food is indeed precious and I suspect that all food service enterprises will very quickly re-align their practices to help stop unnecessary food waste - to burnish their public image if for no other reason.

 “I would suggest that we are at a tipping point and food waste will be reduced on multiple fronts due to the changing consciousness - and this will bolster efforts to fight hunger.”

The great drugs debate is on a high

For those of us without the benefit of deeper understanding through some form of mind-enhancing substance, it is hard to get the head around all the latest talk about drug control. But let’s try.

Broadly speaking it is all about the prohibition, decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs such as cannabis, heroin and cocaine.

Thirteen years ago, Portugal pioneered the decriminalisation route. It is not without its critics, but it has been generally acclaimed a success.

Just to get it straight, Portugal did not legalise, it decriminalised drug use.

This meant a switch from jailing to treating. Using any illegal drug came to be regarded as an issue for the health authorities rather than the justice department.

While drug use is no longer a criminal offence in Portugal, trafficking and dealing still are - and they consumes a lot of police and court time.

A major new study commissioned by the British Home Office included a comparison between the UK’s conventional efforts to control users and Portugal’s decriminalised approach.

It concluded, inter alia, that the tough punishments dished out in the UK do nothing to dissuade people from using drugs.

The Home Office report also stated: ‘‘It is clear that there has not been a lasting and significant increase in drug use in Portugal since 2001.”

The study’s findings were welcomed by the UK coalition government’s Liberal Democrats who are in favour of reform. The Conservatives were not impressed. A spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron said: “We have no intention of decriminalising drugs.”

Kathy Gyngell, a research fellow for a right-leaning British think tank, commented: “First the great Portuguese drug decriminalisation fallacy was fostered; now a British liberalisation myth has been strapped on the back of it by a ruthless and conscienceless pro-drugs lobby.”

Harsh words, but then acrimony and recriminations are normal on the highly contentious subject of drug control.

The subject is hazy and much misunderstood because it is complex. It evokes strong emotions, especially among parents. Statistics do not always tell the whole story and can be slanted or used selectively to support squiffy ideas on one side or the other.

Pope Francis told delegates attending a drug conference in Rome that attempts to legalise recreational drugs “are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but fail to produce the desired effects.”

Anti-prohibitionists point to the irony in Britain where children find it easy to get hold of illegal marijuana but cannot buy legally regulated alcohol until they are 18.

Reform campaigners claim that far from providing the best protection against drug abuse, locking up ‘soft’ drug users is likely to push them into ‘hard’ drugs. What they need – and what they get in Portugal – is counselling.

Whatever one thinks of decriminalisation, Portugal has prompted other countries to take note. While Britain and countries such as France and Sweden are sticking to their guns in the ‘war on drugs,’ Holland, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Germany have all steered away from strict prohibition.

Last December, Uruguay became the first country to make it legal to grow, consume and sell cannabis. This summer Jamaica announced it would decriminalise the possession of small amounts of ‘ganja’ as cannabis is known there.

Washington and Colorado in the US are the first states to permit the recreational use of cannabis despite a continuing federal ban. Florida, Oregon and Alaska could be next in line. Californians are expected to approve legalisation of marijuana when the matter is put to the vote there in 2016.

These developments seem to be building towards a fundamental global shift in attitude, guided not only by social concerns but also by also hard economic realities.

“Criminalising users of heroin, cocaine and cannabis has handed global criminal gangs and terrorists a market worth at least $300 billion a year,” says Baroness Meacher, leader of Britain’s All Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform.

All eyes will now be on Uruguay and the states of Washington and Colorado to see if the legalisation of cannabis, from cultivation to retail outlets, puts the illegal dealers there out of business.

If cannabis follows the pattern of the wine and spirits industry, trade will be taken from the criminals and placed in the hands of law-abiding business people who, in the words of the Economist, “pay their taxes and obey rules on where, when and to whom they can sell their products. Money saved on policing weed can be spent on chasing real criminals, or on treatment for addicts.”

In time,  Portugal may consider it wise to cut off the flow of money to the crooks by moving from decriminalising drug use to legalising it in some qualified way.

The next opportunity for making real progress on a globally coordinated alternative to the hugely costly and hopelessly failing ‘war on drugs’ will come in 2016 at a United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions gathering in New York.

The last such summit was in 2009. The next was scheduled for 2019 but has been brought forward, so there is more than a hint of urgency in seeking some pragmatic form of global ‘peace.’ 

Expats in limbo if UK exits the EU?

British expats in Portugal could be excused for wincing at recent utterances by Prime Minister David Cameron.

In declaring that he was drawing a “red line” on the number of unskilled immigrants flooding into the UK, Mr Cameron said he would be demanding restrictions on freedom of movement within the EU.

“I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer….”

This drew a crystal clear response from Angela Merkel and both the old and new presidents of the European Commission: forget it - the fundamental principle of freedom of movement within the EU is “non-negotiable.”

If Mr Cameron runs into a brick wall on this, Britain’s relationship with Brussels may come a sticky end sooner rather than later. The chances of this happening seem to be growing almost by the day. And, of course, there would be consequences for British expats.

In arguing for a renegotiation of the terms of EU membership, Mr Cameron’s defence minister said British towns were being ‘swamped’ by immigrants.

The same could be rudely said of parts of Portugal. The Algarve in particular is awash with British immigrants. Though few are a burden on the state, a great many are unemployed or unemployable because they are retired.

If the UK no longer intends to abide by the rules of the club and decides to opt out, would the Portuguese and Spanish governments be justified in drawing some sort of red line on the number of Brit immigrants lolling about in the southern European sun?

On a related issue, more rather than less freedom of movement may be available to expat criminals if several senior ministers in Mr Cameron’s cabinet and many of his parliamentary backbenchers have their way. They want to scrap Britain’s membership of the European Arrest Warrant system.

Benefit fraudsters abroad have reportedly cost British taxpayers an estimated £82 million over the past 12 months. A hotline has been set up in Portugal so that members of the public can whistle-blow on such cheats.

But without the benefit of the admittedly somewhat flawed European Search Warrant system, arresting and extraditing convicted criminals on the run, as well as serious benefit shysters, will be even more difficult than it already is.

Perhaps the biggest disservice of late to Brits abroad was the sort of public behaviour one does not expect from a right honourable gentleman.

With barely concealed fury, Mr Cameron flatly told the House of Commons that Britain was not going to pay an EU bill of £1.7 billion, due by 1^st December.

His blunt indignation was redolent of a spoilt child being told to stop staring into their smartphone at the dinner table, but it went down quite well with British taxpayers when they realised that the shock bill worked out at £56 a head.

The danger is that some expats may have been impressed by Mr Cameron’s defiant show of fortitude. Should they be tempted to replicate it with a thumping rejection of a shock demand from the Portuguese taxman, for example, the result will probably be a whopping fine.

Incidentally, I’m told that if you have a problem with the Portuguese taxman, it’s a good idea to go and politely discuss it with him.

Are you being fed too much bad news?

A Times columnist recently pointed out that compared with any period in the past half century, the world as a whole is “healthier, wealthier, happier, cleverer, cleaner, kinder, freer, safer, more peaceful and more equal.”

Probably true. Trouble is, that kind of news doesn’t sell papers and attract advertisers.

Newspapers, television, radio and online news services provide an unrelenting torrent of negativity. There is never any shortage of bad news but, blimey, hasn’t there been a surfeit of it lately!

Even at the best of times, bad news stories far outnumber and are given far more prominence than the good ones. As if that were not bad enough, far from “telling it like it is,” journalists nowadays often feel the need to add spice, distort, exaggerate or emotionalise in order to make the news sound even worse.

Hacks nowadays are under pressure to ratchet things up amid a multiplying profusion of competitors all covering the same stories. 

Taking more notice of the bad than the good is a natural trait we humans have been stuck with since the Stone Age when we needed to quickly identify trouble in order to avoid it and survive.

But bad news can be toxic. Like a drug, it can become addictive. Psychologists say that regular doses can harm our mental health.

In Portugal, for example, a daily injection of gloomy economic news has been difficult to avoid in recent years. For many people it’s hard enough struggling to cope with the basic practicalities of austerity without the media rubbing it in and provoking feelings of pessimism, fearfulness, anxiety  and anger.

Terrorist atrocities raging in the Middle East, a new ‘Cold War’ fermenting in Ukraine, paedophilia rampant in the UK, Ebola out of control in West Africa, climate change threatening the whole damn planet. There’s no let-up. The subjects and the locations change, but the overall picture remains bleak. That said, it’s not entirely hopeless.

The death toll in Syria’s three-year civil war has climbed past 160,000. More than a million were killed in the Vietnam War and 55 million in World War II.

The number of Ebola deaths is still measured in the low thousands and although the dangers of it multiplying exponentially should not be underestimated, it’s worth remembering that in 2012 about 1.6 million people died from AIDS, 1.3 million from tuberculosis and 627,000 from malaria. The good news is that the overall number of people dying annually from infectious diseases has been dropping dramatically.

It seems like only yesterday that we had all that media malarkey about the Y2K millennium bug that was going to end life as we know it by sparking a catastrophic meltdown in computer systems. Pity it didn’t, some might say, given the spiralling abuse and hate on social media.

A couple of centuries ago - 21 October 1805 to be exact - the British defeated the Spanish at the Battle of Trafalgar. The mighty victory was somewhat overshadowed by the fact that Lord Nelson was shot and killed in the battle. It took a fortnight to get the news to London.

Today, such an event would be transmitted around the entire globe in minutes. It might even be broadcast on TV live.

And don’t tell me you wouldn’t watch it.

Is expression ever a freedom too far?

While freedom of expression is said to be the cornerstone of democracy, of late it seems to be on shaky ground.

It remains on a steady footing here in Portugal compared to most countries and that is probably because of prevailing moral attitudes as much as the fact that it is enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution.

Throughout most of Portugal’s history, monarchs, the Catholic Church and political dictators have done their best to stop people from expressing anti-establishment opinions.

That changed dramatically after the 1974 revolution. Article 37 of the Constitution lays down that “everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination. Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship.”

Strong as that sounds, freedom of expression in Portugal is not absolute.

The 2014 Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders ranks Portugal at number 30 out of the 180 countries covered. That is three places ahead of the UK and 16 places ahead of the USA.

Finland tops the index for the fourth year running, closely followed again by the Netherlands and Norway. Down at the bottom, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea are countries where such freedoms simply do not exist.

Among the main obstacles to freedom of the press in Portugal as in other European countries are national security restrictions, curbs on information about criminal investigations and defamation suits involving demands for large amounts in damages.

In even the freest countries, defamation against a private individual is a crime, as is blasphemy and hate speech against religion or race.

The courts in Portugal are occasionally asked to step in to exercise control when freedom seems to have been pushed too far.

A few years ago, the Lisbon-based weekly Sol was fined €1.5 million for defying a court injunction by publishing details from phone conversations recorded in a police surveillance operation.  

Last year, Portugal’s attorney general opened an investigation into a well-known journalist and author who described President Aníbal Cavaco Silva as “a clown.” Insulting the honour of the head of state constitutes an offence under Article 328 of the country’s Penal Code and may attract a punishment of up to three years imprisonment.

This summer a 30-year-old Algarve artist appeared in court charged with demeaning a national symbol by hanging a Portuguese flag on a gallows in an abandoned field near Faro. It was an expression of personal protest as part of a university project. He avoided a possible five-year sentence when the court ruled he was exercising his freedom of expression. Even in Finland demeaning the national flag is a punishable crime.

Then there is the stalled McCanns vs Gonçalo Amaral civil action in which the British couple are seeking €1.2 in damages from publication of the former detective’s controversial book, Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira (The truth of the Lie). While Amaral is claiming his right to freedom of expression, the McCanns have argued that he has deeply harmed them personally and also hindered the search for their daughter.

The McCann couple said recently that press regulation in Britain was still not working. This came after they were awarded £55,000 in libel damages from the Sunday Times.

As if regulating print media was not complicated enough, online social networking has opened up a completely new frontier, bringing new privileges and pleasures - and also new concerns and challenges.

Unlike the legally accountable mainstream media, social media users operate largely at will. Lord Leveson in his report noted that some called the internet a ‘‘wild west,’’ but he preferred to use the term “ethical vacuum.”

Security services have been monitoring internet communications between terrorists, political extremist groups and criminal organisations. Paedophile rings have also become a focus of special attention. In the main, though, internet users have been largely beyond the remit of regulation.

Things may be changing. Increasingly, hateful ‘trolls’ operating in anonyminity from the comfort of their tablets or smartphones risk being tracked down, as indicated by the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation of a catalogue of threats and vile insults aimed at the McCanns.

In a case thought to be unprecedented in Portugal, court of appeal judges in the northern city of Oporto have unanimously upheld the dismissal of an employee for comments on Facebook. The employee had claimed “right to privacy” and “freedom of expression” in response to allegations that his comments were offensive, but the judge in the court of first instance argued, “it is unacceptable that freedom of expression and communication does not have any type of outer limits.”

A court of appeal in Texas last month seemed to be manouevering in the outer limits when it ruled that Texans had the constitutional right to take photographs of strangers, even if that involved surreptitious “upskirt” pictures of women or close-up body shots of children in bathing suits for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification.

The judges in Texas said this was an essential component of freedom of expression and to deny it was a “paternalistic” intrusion on a person’s civil rights.

Was this further securing a cornerstone of democracy, or conceding a freedom too far?